Tourney Clever Tournament Prize Pool Idea (1 Viewer)

[doublebooyah85]

One problem I have hosting tournaments is I have a wide variety of players that have different buyins. Most of my tournament players prefer a $50 buyin, and my cash players prefer a $300 tourney or a $400-$500 cash game. I think I solved the problem that should result in a large field tourney (2-3 tables)...

1) I want to make it simple so I don't need to explain it again and again...

2) There are no chops. You must play the tournament out...

3) There will be 2 prize pools. Depending on your entry will decide which prize pool(s) you can win.

For example;

Craig buys in for $50 + $200 receives 10,000 starting stack
Frank buys in for $50 + $200 receives 10,000 starting stack
Sean buys in for $50 receives 10,000 starting stack
Ryan buys in for $50 receives 10,000 starting stack
Andy buys in for $50 + $200 receives 10,000 starting stack
etc. etc. etc. Assume 12 players do the incremental buy in for $250, and 8 players only buy in for $50. Therefore 20 contributed the minimum $50.

Prize Pool A (20 players @ $50)
1. $800
2. $600
3. $400
4. $150
5. $50
Total $2,000

Prize Pool B (12 players @ 200)
1. $1,000
2. $600
3. $400
4. $300
5. $100
Total $2,400

Some players can only win prize pool A, others can win both A and B, based on their entry. This is similar to the "last the longest prop" that is common at home tourneys...

I can't think of any reason why this would compromise the game. Thoughts? Tag a PCF member who hosts tourneys frequently!

 

[TheOffalo]

So I understand, there are two separate rankings? Let’s say a player who paid $200 (or is it $250 total?) finished 1st among that player pool but 5th overall, that player would win $1000 + $50?

 

[phaze12]

I’ve seen this structure somewhere before. Maybe an online tourney? Can’t remember. Didn’t catch on iirc.

It does work. Just make sure you have the payouts posted clearly. Can get confusing for some.

 

[DaneWoj]

We run a season ending freeroll and have a $20/$50/$100 optional entry that is like this.

Basically it becomes a last man and they chop it up near the end.

 

[grantc54]

I had the exact same thought a couple months ago. The issue I came up with is that it increased the risk of collusion and chip dumping exponentially since all players play from the same chip pool.

People sometimes think being clever isn't cheating. Let's both buy in to the tournament, I'll do the cheap one, you do both and Ill dump you chips.

The problem is they both get the same starting stack but Pool B chips are worth a lot more $.

It's a neat idea, but the risk introduced isnt worth it in my opinion.

 

[doublebooyah85]

So I understand, there are two separate rankings? Let’s say a player who paid $200 (or is it $250 total?) finished 1st among that player pool but 5th overall, that player would win $1000 + $50?

I guess it will be tricky and annoying knowing what your ranking is in the prize pool with less people in…

 

[Kensco]

This would be my sticking point, too

The problem is they both get the same starting stack but Pool B chips are worth a lot more $.

Vary the size of each player's starting stack based on their choice of buy-in level: $200 would get them T10,000, $150 = T7500, $100 = T5000, etc..

This way each player can decide their buy-in comfort level, but all chips would have the same value, and every player is playing for the same prize pool. It would be very much like being dropped into any tournament after the first hand has been played and not everyone has the same stack size.

To be fair, I've never done this. But inside my head it sounds like it could be a solution

 

[grantc54]

This would be my sticking point, too


Vary the size of each player's starting stack based on their choice of buy-in level: $200 would get them T10,000, $150 = T7500, $100 = T5000, etc..

This way each player can decide their buy-in comfort level, but all chips would have the same value, and every player is playing for the same prize pool. It would be very much like being dropped into any tournament after the first hand has been played and not everyone has the same stack size.

To be fair, I've never done this. But inside my head it sounds like it could be a solution

The problem is thr lower buyin players are at a disadvantage. The problem I was trying cover (and imagine OP was too) is perceived advantage of those with thicker wallets willing to spend more.

 

[BGinGA]

One problem I have hosting tournaments is I have a wide variety of players that have different buyins. Most of my tournament players prefer a $50 buyin, and my cash players prefer a $300 tourney or a $400-$500 cash game. I think I solved the problem that should result in a large field tourney (2-3 tables)...

1) I want to make it simple so I don't need to explain it again and again...

2) There are no chops. You must play the tournament out...

3) There will be 2 prize pools. Depending on your entry will decide which prize pool(s) you can win.

For example;

Craig buys in for $50 + $200 receives 10,000 starting stack
Frank buys in for $50 + $200 receives 10,000 starting stack
Sean buys in for $50 receives 10,000 starting stack
Ryan buys in for $50 receives 10,000 starting stack
Andy buys in for $50 + $200 receives 10,000 starting stack
etc. etc. etc. Assume 12 players do the incremental buy in for $250, and 8 players only buy in for $50. Therefore 20 contributed the minimum $50.

Prize Pool A (20 players @ $50)
1. $800
2. $600
3. $400
4. $150
5. $50
Total $2,000

Prize Pool B (12 players @ 200)
1. $1,000
2. $600
3. $400
4. $300
5. $100
Total $2,400

Some players can only win prize pool A, others can win both A and B, based on their entry. This is similar to the "last the longest prop" that is common at home tourneys...

I can't think of any reason why this would compromise the game. Thoughts? Tag a PCF member who hosts tourneys frequently!

I ran multiple-entry-level 2-table tournaments for a few years back in 2008-2012 or so. Players had the option of choosing one of three different buy-in amounts, and competed for the corresponding prize pools.

Worked great for our specific group, but the risk of collusion is very real if the entry price levels differ greatly. $10-$20-$30 or $20-$40-$60 are much different than $50-$250 or $100-$300.

 

[MeridianFC]

I know I’m pretty thick but I do not understand this tournament format at all can someone explain it to me like I’m a five-year-old? People can buy in for different amounts?

 

[Nine_high]

I know I’m pretty thick but I do not understand this tournament format at all can someone explain it to me like I’m a five-year-old? People can buy in for different amounts?

It's a $50 tournament, but about half the players are betting each other $200 who will last the longest. Because there's so many players making the extra $200 bet, they pay out progressively, similar to a tournament. So it's a tournament within a tournament

 

[Silver_Fiend]

 

[doublebooyah85]

I ran multiple-entry-level 2-table tournaments for a few years back in 2008-2012 or so. Players had the option of choosing one of three different buy-in amounts, and competed for the corresponding prize pools.

Worked great for our specific group, but the risk of collusion is very real if the entry price levels differ greatly. $10-$20-$30 or $20-$40-$60 are much different than $50-$250 or $100-$300.

Yeah I don't think ultimately my idea works. It would be annoying to follow along whose left in the other prize pool.

 

[MeridianFC]

It's a $50 tournament, but about half the players are betting each other $200 who will last the longest. Because there's so many players making the extra $200 bet, they pay out progressively, similar to a tournament. So it's a tournament within a tournament

So it’s like a Last Longer bet amongst those participants (but with a tourney like payout rather than winner take all)?

 

[Nine_high]

So it’s like a Last Longer bet amongst those participants (but with a tourney like payout rather than winner take all)?

Exactly. And the last longer bet is 4x the tournament buy in

 

[MeridianFC]

Exactly. And the last longer bet is 4x the tournament buy in

Thanks for the clarification. I have to say I really don’t like that structure being co-mingled with the regular tourney but I’m going to think on it for a bit.

 

[Nine_high]

Thanks for the clarification. I have to say I really don’t like that structure being co-mingled with the regular tourney but I’m going to think on it for a bit.

It seems fine I guess, like it wouldn't compromise the actual tournament, though others mentioned the risk of collusion which I agree is there. I'm not sure I would ever do this though.

Another way to look at it: I generally allow players to make little side bets that don't interfere with the game. But if I were running a $50 tournament and half the players agreed to do this $200 side bet without my involvement, I don't think I'd be ok with that. Somehow the amount being so large compared to the game I'm running makes it not ok for me, though I'm not sure exactly why

 

[BGinGA]

I ran multiple-entry-level 2-table tournaments for a few years back in 2008-2012 or so. Players had the option of choosing one of three different buy-in amounts, and competed for the corresponding prize pools.

Worked great for our specific group, but the risk of collusion is very real if the entry price levels differ greatly. $10-$20-$30 or $20-$40-$60 are much different than $50-$250 or $100-$300.

Eventually, most of our 16-player events' entries broke down something like this:

-- 16 players x $10 entry = $160 pool, paid 4
-- 8-9 players x $20 entry = $80-90 pool, paid 2
-- 3-4 players x $30 enty = $30-40 pool, paid 1

And at that point, we just changed to flat $20 entry tournaments with an optional $10 last-longer. (Since only 3-5 players were wanting to play for only $10, and only 3-4 players were wanting to play for $30, a multi-level entry just became not worth the extra hassle.) We later replaced the LL with an optional KO Bounty.

Within a year, those $20 casual events became $40 tournaments, as the less serious players dropped out, those remaining became better, and new players were added.

 

[doublebooyah85]

What about an optional bounty?

Say 20 entries and only half do the bounty.

 

[philhut]

Interesting but if I were a player that wanted to take advantage of the scenario I would get my friend(s), wife, other to come with me and enter the tournament at a $50 player to tangle with others to hopefully knock out the larger paying players so I could be given a leg up for my big buy in amount.
This strategy would be similar to a thoroughbred trainer/owner putting multiple entries in a horse race and sending one off as the rabbit to set the pace while the other comes in as a closer over taking those that tired chasing the first horse.

In a multiple cost entry game if the prize pool was worth it I know I'd consider the above option in a home game where I do not know everyone well.

I would suggest a $50-100 buy in with unlimited rebuys until X round and a (buy-in stack or 1/2 buy-in stack add-on at the end of the rebuy period). If folks come with deep pockets they will pound the rebuys in a multi-table trying to build chip advantage.... prize pools build very quickly in my personal exp with rebuys/add-ons. I reduce the starting stacks to 3-5k for a t25 or 2k (up to 3k max) for t5 based tournaments. There just are not enough rebuys with 10k in chips in a t25 in the games I've played to build the prize pool like happens in a shorter stack game.

 

[merkong]

Meh

 

[Nine_high]

What about an optional bounty?

Say 20 entries and only half do the bounty.

I am not in love with it. Because of the relative size I think it will distort the game as much as the multiple buy in amount would, probably moreso.

If I had a bounty and I was getting short, I'd be way more inclined to shove against a non bounty player since I'll presumably get my bounty refunded if I lose.

 

[BGinGA]

What about an optional bounty?

Say 20 entries and only half do the bounty.

A lot of the tournaments I run have an optional bounty pool. Some have a mandatory $5 bounty with optional $10 super-bounty (different chip design). Either works fine.

 

[Senzrock]

Just have the players who want to play for more organize a last longer - much easier and no chance for collusion. I wouldn’t run a tournament like this.