Tourney Bounty equal to buy in (1 Viewer)

[Blind Joe]

What do you guys think of this idea? The reason behind wanting to do this is to spread the cash out a bit more and give players who don't make the money more to play for if they bust and/or eliminate someone, and my reason for wanting to spread the cash out a bit more is that we have one player who joined late last year and has dominated this year (he's taken 60% of the total payout this year and doesn't look like letting up).

Normally our bounties are quite a high percentage of the buy-in anyway, compared to most on here, because we have fairly low buy-in tourneys. So a £10 buy in would have a £5 bounty, or £15 buy in has a £10 bounty. Also, we only have one bounty which is collected when you eliminate someone. This time the rule would be that you collect the bounty if you bust someone and if they rebuy they rebuy the bounty as well, so the bounty pot and prize pot would be perfectly equal.

Since there are always players who bust and eliminate others but fail to make the money I thought this would be a good way to give them a bit more of a share. Daft idea? Good idea? Would bounty only be better?

 

[Beakertwang]

The big problem with it is that one could win the tourney, and make less than 2nd place. I’d just add another cash spot, and flatten out the payouts.

 

[RowdyRawhide]

So you prize money would come from rebuys only?? Never mind...just saw the answer to that question. How many rebuys do you normally have. I dont think I would care for this idea, although it does create more chances for variance I would think...depending on the group

 

[Blind Joe]

The big problem with it is that one could win the tourney, and make less than 2nd place. I’d just add another cash spot, and flatten out the payouts.

I see your point, but playing devil's advocate, is that a big problem? If everyone knows the rules beforehand and 2nd place makes lots of busts or eliminations, then they win lots of money, along with what they get for finishing 2nd.

I'm listening though, and certainly not committed to the idea, just thinking of ways to spread the money because, whilst our cash leader is a good player and deserves his wins, I don't want people to start getting disheartened because most of the time they are simply turning up and putting money indirectly into his wallet

Maybe I'm overthinking it though and a bigger, flatter, payout structure would work better. I just thought that since this was a bounty tournament anyway I could use that to achieve what I wanted.

 

[Frogzilla]

You mean bounty is half of the total buy-in? Great tourney setup. Winstar used to run it every Sunday ($100 to prize pool, $100 to bounty, $30 rake) and it’s a blast.

 

[JMC9389]

I like doing $10 buy ins in which $5 is a bounty and the other $5 goes to the prize pool. It helps to make a tight game less tight. At least I think it does.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I'm intrigued by this idea. I've been meaning to test it myself for a long while, but I don't play often enough to start experimenting.

Edit: I thought you meant bounty only! That's what I've been meaning to test.
EndEdit

The big problem with it is that one could win the tourney, and make less than 2nd place. I’d just add another cash spot, and flatten out the payouts.

I see what you're saying, but I don't agree that it's a problem. I don't think that you actually "win" the tournament just because you last the longest. All forms of competition are dictated by their rules, and with these rules you win by eliminating the most players. Edit: thought it was bounty only. EndEdit

A bad example: If my soccer team wins 1 and draws 5 matches, your team wins 3, and loses 3, which team is better? Pre 94 its my team, but nowadays it's your team

 

[Mr Winberg]

I do agree that the best solution to

we have one player who joined late last year and has dominated this year (he's taken 60% of the total payout this year and doesn't look like letting up).

is

flatten out the payouts

 

[Blind Joe]

I do agree that the best solution to

is

This is something I've already decided on for next year and informed the group of, I'm going to start paying 50% of the field instead of a third, so I'm a tad reluctant to implement this early, but I'm not discounting it as an option.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I don't want people to start getting disheartened because most of the time they are simply turning up and putting money indirectly into his wallet

Is this a real concern, i.e., have you talked to your players about this? Or is it just a guess?
We had a good player who had an incredible lucky streak and took far more than his fair share of 1st prices and cashes. Nobody complained though, perhaps because of our low stakes.

My point is, I wouldn't fix something unless it's really a problem.

 

[Blind Joe]

Is this a real concern, i.e., have you talked to your players about this? Or is it just a guess?
We had a good player who had an incredible lucky streak and took far more than his fair share of 1st prices and cashes. Nobody complained though, perhaps because of our low stakes.

My point is, I wouldn't fix something unless it's really a problem.

A bit of both. It's a guess that players will get disheartened if the same player is winning every tournament while the majority of them are merely contributing to his winnings and getting nothing back. But there's been a bit of friendly banter about it as well, so I'd say it is on the group's radar.

 

[Blind Joe]

So you prize money would come from rebuys only?? Never mind...just saw the answer to that question. How many rebuys do you normally have. I dont think I would care for this idea, although it does create more chances for variance I would think...depending on the group

Rebuys are usually 1/3 to 1/2 depending on the structure and starting stack. Since this will be 150BB but with a mildly aggressive blinds increase average of 52% I'd expect it to be between those.

 

[JustinInMN]

So I say, "sure why not!"

 

[upNdown]

If you're looking for opinions.
I love tournaments. I hate bounties. I'll play along in bouty tournaments, even in high bounty tournaments. But if somebody changed my regular game to what you're suggesting, I'd be really pissed. Because I'd feel like I should quit, but I wouldn't want to quit.
I guess my point is, don't ask us; ask your players.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I had considered the idea some time ago, of a once a year, all-bounty event. Before I did, I ran some numbers. I could go back and re-examine, but my group and your group may be very different. So I will instead summarize...

• Strong players that typically finish at the top would see a dramatic pay-cuts. Dramatic. Numerous times the winner would win $60 in a $20 tournament with 18 players. That's little money for 5 hours.
• Heads-up would be as boring as watching paint dry. It's basically a very flat payout at that point, and I suspect chops would be more prevalent. It's my belief that a chop is a sign that the game is not fun for the players anymore.
• A lot of poor players would have a better chance to break even, or even double up.
• Nitty players would fair very poorly. That guy that limps to a just in the money finish... yeah, he's losing every time. Discouraging one type of play makes the game more 1 dimensional, and thus, less skillful.

 

[Taghkanic]

I would spend some more time analyzing why one player is winning so overwhelmingly, before changing the structure just to penalize his success.

Unless he is cheating, the rest of the field is probably not paying enough attention to his play to improve and adjust their own. If they do adjust, over time that should bring the winning player’s results back toward the mean.

If it’s simply the case that this guy is way more skilled than the rest of the field, and they are not interested in improving, frankly you might be better off admitting that he’s just too good, and disinviting him. If he’s really that good, he should take the compliment and go find a tougher, higher-stakes game.

 

[JustinInMN]

Nitty players would fair very poorly. That guy that limps to a just in the money finish... yeah, he's losing every time. Discouraging one type of play makes the game more 1 dimensional, and thus, less skillful.

This is a feature. Not a bug.

 

[wolfpack]

I'm listening though, and certainly not committed to the idea, just thinking of ways to spread the money because, whilst our cash leader is a good player and deserves his wins, I don't want people to start getting disheartened because most of the time they are simply turning up and putting money indirectly into his wallet

Play better poker

 

[CrazyEddie]

If you want to spread the money around, how about a combination double-or-nothing tourney with high bounties? For example:

• $20 buy-in; half goes to the prize pool, half is a bounty
• Play until half the players are eliminated
• The surviving players split the prize pool equally
• Surviving players get paid their own bounties
• Everyone gets paid for any bounties they collected

So half the players get paid $30 (a 50% win on their entry fee), and everyone gets paid $10 per player they knock out. The tournament is shorter, so play it twice. Your good player will finish in the money twice, but everyone else gets two shots to finish in the money so it'll be less obvious that the good player is that much better (and more profitable) than everyone else, and even someone who gets knocked out might still get ten bucks as a consolation prize if they knocked someone else out first.

Everyone ends up feeling like a winner, even the losers!

 

[JustinInMN]

even the losers!

 

[Mr Winberg]

I still can't help thinking that this is just good ole variance. Nobody is skilled enough to take 60% of the payouts, there's just too much luck in poker. Sure, if he's the best player a lucky streak will be much more noticeably. I would wait a little longer before acting on it.

We had a good player who had an incredible lucky streak and took far more than his fair share of 1st prices and cashes.

This guy is probably the best player of our group, and he's had poker either as a living or as a way to get extra money since the boom. Still, in every victory he needed to survive coinflips and all-ins where he was dominated.
The same period the group's other poker semipro didn't cash at all...because he didn't survive the coinflips, the dominated or even the dominating all-in positions...

Winning a tournament is far more about luck than skill.

 

[Taghkanic]

Winning a tournament is far more about luck than skill.

While agreeing that one should wait and see what the results are over a larger sample size for this player... I can’t agree that tournaments are more about luck than skill in the long run. Especially for smaller tourneys with a fairly consistent group of players.

I host a two table tournament twice a month. The game has been going on for about a decade; I am the fourth host. While there are a few casual participants, and we’ve added or lost some players, the core group has been remarkably steady.

For about six of those years, including the last three, I have kept careful record of all the results—how every player has placed. About half that time, it was a weekly game, so I have data on about 250 sessions.

These results have been kept in spreadsheets, allowing me to really analyze where people are placing, how often they’re getting in the money, who is a truly winning player and who is not.

It is very clear to me that among this pool of players (currently about 16 of us who play at least 2/3rds of the time, plus another 8 occasionally), there are clear winners and losers.

Generalizing a bit, there are roughly 1/4 whose results are noticeably better, and 1/4 who are noticeably worse, and half who fall in between.

This is not to say that the top 1/4 always are the top finishers. Everyone has bad nights and good nights. But some have a lot more good nights and a lot fewer bad ones.

There are also some on the edges of the top category and the average ones, who often place either just before or just after the bubble. These may be slightly winning or slightly losing overall... generally more nitty players who last longer than average but rarely go deep.

Then there are a couple outliers who tend to win it all a bit more than the average, but often place at the very bottom if they don’t go deep—these being the wilder players, who amass huge stacks a small percentage of the time by taking lots of chances and sometimes running hot.

But without question, in this group it is obvious that while anyone can win on any given night, if you had to bet for or against people, you’d know who to pick...

 

[Mr Winberg]

I can’t agree that tournaments are more about luck than skill in the long run

I actually never claimed that. If you check the text you quoted, I used the singular form: "a tournament".

And any singular lucky instance can turn into a lucky streak...if you're lucky. ;-)

I totally agree that tournaments favour the skilled in the long run. But I don't believe winning 60% of the payouts is pure skill.

 

[longflop]

Before the virus disrupted everything, I would run a "Bounty Hunter" tournament once during the league season. Half of each buy in and rebuy went to the bounty pool, the other half went to the prize pool. I would typically pay 4 spots for between 12-18 players, any more 5 spots, plus high hand and bad beat out of the prize pool. It spread it out a bit, and as long as you finished in the money and collected at least one bounty, you made your money back. They guys had fun, but I wouldn't want to do it every month. As a one or two off event, its a good change of pace.

 

[Ben8257]

Before the virus disrupted everything, I would run a "Bounty Hunter" tournament once during the league season. Half of each buy in and rebuy went to the bounty pool, the other half went to the prize pool. I would typically pay 4 spots for between 12-18 players, any more 5 spots, plus high hand and bad beat out of the prize pool. It spread it out a bit, and as long as you finished in the money and collected at least one bounty, you made your money back. They guys had fun, but I wouldn't want to do it every month. As a one or two off event, its a good change of pace.

I was going to say on the east coast we call this bounty hunting! Exactly what you're talking about where the bounty is equal to the buy in! Definitely changes the game and even more so when its $200! So a bounty is $100 for each one. It can be fun but agree I wouldn't want it for my regular structure.

Is this player that is winning all the time being watched? High quality dealer? Fast with everything? Is he winning hands that he deals or totally random? Not accusing any cheating just saying keep an eye especially on his deal! We all have players we expect at the final tables but winning everytime seems a bit odd. Eventually you would purposely loose to take the heat off yourself.

Even in a game where you know the players are whales and good for a few buy ins, once in a while you have to loose some money back to them. Otherwise he will kill your game!

Ben

 

[Poker Zombie]

I still can't help thinking that this is just good ole variance. Nobody is skilled enough to take 60% of the payouts, there's just too much luck in poker. Sure, if he's the best player a lucky streak will be much more noticeably. I would wait a little longer before acting on it.

You haven't met @Ben

In 43 games he attended, he has won 14 (33%), and finished in the money 26 times (60%). Yes, there are coin flips that need to be won, but a highly skilled player tries to stay out of the flips when it would eliminate them.

 

[upNdown]

Winning a tournament is far more about luck than skill.

You have to get lucky to win a large tournament, that’s true. But that doesn’t mean it’s more about luck.
Simply put, the skilled tournament player will put himself in a position to minimize the impact of the inevitable bad swings in luck.

 

[Mr Winberg]

You haven't met @Ben

In 43 games he attended, he has won 14 (33%), and finished in the money 26 times (60%). Yes, there are coin flips that need to be won, but a highly skilled player tries to stay out of the flips when it would eliminate them.

You have to get lucky to win a large tournament, that’s true. But that doesn’t mean it’s more about luck.
Simply put, the skilled tournament player will put himself in a position to minimize the impact of the inevitable bad swings in luck.

Listen guys, I know that poker is a game of skill. And perhaps I shouldn't have written "far more". My point is simply that in this case, where someone has won 60% of the payouts, from my experience that can't just be about skill. Even @Ben hasn't come close to 60% of the payouts (my estimation based on @Poker Zombie's post). That's why I suspect the guy referred to is a good player on a lucky streak.

And here's what I meant when I wrote that a single tournament is more about luck (notice I avoided writing "far") :
Let's say you have 20 players equally good. Each has a 5% chance of winning. Let's say one of them over night gets a lot better, and now has a 10% chance of winning, the other 19 share the remaining 90%. He will still most likely not win the next tournament, right? He will most likely not win for several tournaments. When he finally wins, it's because he got lucky. In combination with his skill, of course, which means he doesn't have to get as lucky as his opponents to win.

I suspect this is nothing controversial, it might just be that the language barrier made me express myself poorly.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I don't think it's a language barrier, but there may be some misunderstanding.

If I recall, Blind Joes's group is small. They may do winner take all tournaments, or 80-20. In those cases, it wouldn't take a stretch to think that one incredible player could win 60% of the prize pool over time. I also seem to recall comments describing his group as more novice and splashy than skillful.

In my example with Ben, his 33% win rate is against an average field of 16.4 players. In a luck based field, we would expect a 6% win rate. Now, my players aren't pros, but they have progressed beyond the novice skill level. If poker was all skill (like chess), Ben would have a 100% win rate, or very close to it, so I certainly agree that tournaments take some luck, but Joe's 60% going to a single player is conceivable, and will not wash out over time, unless a payout change is made, or skill levels improve.

Fortunately, im my case, Ben has been very helpful in our games, giving advice during breaks or post-game and helping our players improve.

 

[upNdown]

but Joe's 60% going to a single player is conceivable

To put it bluntly, I'd suggest that has more to do with the rest of the field's lack of skill, than it does with the winner's skill. The winner has to be good, of course, but if he's winning that much, my guess is that the rest of the field are either all novices, or at least they play like it.