Tourney Determining places paid by # of buyins plus rebuys, rather than # of players: opinions? (1 Viewer)

[Beakertwang]

Had a thought about payouts. I'm a fan of paying out more places; giving more players a chance of winning makes the game more fun.

Suppose a 9-player tourney. I would pay out top 3, something like 20%/30%/50%. But if there were 5 rebuys, one could spread that out to 4 players, or even 5, with 4th and 5th getting 10% each. In our game with $10 buy-ins, that would still leave $110 for 3 players, at 20%/30%/40%, that would be $22/33/55 (I'm rounding the payouts for simplicity). I easily could

As downsides, one could see it as rewarding losing play, or possibly someone getting upset at a seemingly low payout for winning.

Thoughts?

 

[upNdown]

The first couple of tournaments I ran, that was my thinking - it seemed to make sense to pay out more players, based on more rebuys. But after playing a lot of “real” tournaments and seeing that nobody’s doing it that way, it just makes sense to me to keep the number of payouts the same.
I really can’t back that up with practical reasons, just that if you do rebuy, and they don’t increase the number of payouts, and you mincash, at least the increased amount will help to offset the cost of your rebuy.
And if you don’t rebuy, and they don’t increase the number of payouts, then a mincash translates to a nicer profit - a little reward for not rebuying.

 

[Trihonda]

I always consider the number of entries... it’s no different than if you have a 50 person tourney where players rebuy, or in that same tourney, a player busts out, doesn’t rebuy, and a late entry comes into the game. Does the late entry count when the re-entry did not? They’re both situations where a person pays the entry fee, receieves a starting stack, and enters (or re-enters) the field of play. It adds more chips into play, and more players. The fact that a player busted out is immaterial.

 

[Coyote]

Would it be advisable to expand the rewarded (winning) positions with one (or maybe more in bigger tournaments) break-even / money-back position?
I understand from the above that, if so, in multi-entry, large player number tourneys there might be a risk of winning players getting less than their money back.
Maybe in an STT with 3 winning positions you could give the 4th player his first buy-in back?

 

[DoubleEagle]

We use re-entries rather than re-buys. We base the payout based on total entries. A re-entry is like a separate new player. We are also generous in our payout structure, usually about 30%. Paying out more places helps bring back the weaker players.

 

[Poker Zombie]

We only pay out based on butts in the seats.

The reasoning...

• The last position paid out is usually very close to money back. Rebuys give that position a chance to win with profit.
• 1st Place gets a bigger slice of the pie. Our tournaments are $20. In a 9 player game (like the last one you posted about) the first rebuy bumps it to $100, which is a psychology satisfying number (and 1 rebuy is almost always guaranteed)
• Casinos may count rebuys as a new player, but they are only paying 10-15% of the pool, giving 2x as a minimum payout.

I once played in a game that paid 1x your buy-in back for 3rd, 2x buy-in for 2nd, and everything else for 1st. Rebuys in this game were suicide because you had to finish 1st (and it was usually 2 tables) just to win. In my opinion, the greater the reward, the greater the risk. Paying 30% of the field keeps players returning, especially if that win amounts to a profit.

 

[Josh Kifer]

If I have a few rebuys, we will add a extra spot for base money back, but nearly everything goes 50/30/20 in a 8-9 spot game

 

[grantc54]

I also used to expand payouts based on rebuys but stopped as it seemed no-one else does.

I do a fairly flat payout for larger tournaments (paying 24-28% of the field) so the rebuys help beef up the prize sizes.

Grant

 

[JustinInMN]

I think paying out based on entries makes the most sense. I typically do 1 spot for every 4-5 entries. (Under 4 one place, 5-8 two places, 9-12 three places, 13-18 four places, etc...)

But if you want to make the rebuy a difficult proposition I get what @Poker Zombie is saying.

 

[BGinGA]

One of our leagues fixes the number (and percentage) of payouts based on 'field' size -- 25% + 1 (truncated, not rounded), with the lowest payout = the entry fee. So with no re-buys/add-ons, an 8-player field would pay 3 places, and a 16-player field would pay 5 places (and 3rd/5th would get their entry fee returned, respectively)

One full-stack/full-cost re-buy per player is allowed (if felted), and an optional half-stack/half-cost add-on is offered at the end of the re-buy period. The re-buys are added to the field size, and the add-ons are added at half-value (two add-ons = +1 to the field size. The numbers of paid places is based on the adjusted field size, with the stipulation that the number of payouts must be less than half the actual field size.

So regardless of how many re-buys or add-ons occur in an 8-player field, it pays 3 places (because paying 4 would not be less than half of 8). But the payouts for a 11-player event with 2 re-buys and 6 add-ons would be based on an adjusted field size of 16 (11+2+3), or paying 5 places of 11 players (with 5th getting entry fee back).... instead of the standard 3 payouts for 11 players. And regardless of how many re-buys or add-ons occurred in that 11-player field, no more than 5 places would ever be paid (due to the less-than-half stipulation).

The players seem to enjoy the extra pay spots on occasion, and it all gets calculated automatically via spreadsheet so it's not something that anybody needs to figure out on the fly (current payout spots and cash can be shown in realtime, based on re-buy inputs and the number of add-ons).

A different league uses the same basic structure, but does not have add-ons -- so only re-buys are added to the adjusted field size to calculate payouts.

 

[Poker Zombie]

it all gets calculated automatically via spreadsheet so it's not something that anybody needs to figure out on the fly (current payout spots and cash can be shown in realtime, based on re-buy inputs and the number of add-ons).

This is something every game should do. A spreadsheet or tournament manager software keeps everything above board, and drives players to do better as payouts climb. Big screens are also nice so everyone can see the payouts climb. Technology is getting to the point where it is stupid easy to hook up a laptop to a television, and a 22" tv/monitor costs less than a cheap table.

 

[Mojo1312]

Whatever keeps your players coming back, but if the object is to increase the number of pay-outs based directly on poor decisions, why not give everyone a trophy or a gold star at the door for showing up? The message is: the lousier the group plays as a whole, the more get paid. No different than grading on the bell curve, which is fine for certain summer camp activities where fun and feeling good about oneself is the main goal.

Maybe I am a little too serious minded about the matter, but second chances should not have any bearing on the number of places paid.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Re-entry tournaments count every re-entry as a separate player. Re-buy tournaments do not. Re-buy tournaments have all but disappeared on the tournament circuit.

 

[Mojo1312]

Re-entry tournaments count every re-entry as a separate player. Re-buy tournaments do not. Re-buy tournaments have all but disappeared on the tournament circuit.

Hollywood Slots in Bangor no longer counts every re-entry as a separate player. They changed the language to every unique entry.

 

[Gobbs]

I think I have the fence post lodged up a very specific orifice of mine with regards to this subject. That is why I am in favor of @BGinGA 's concept of accounting for rebuys/re-entries and add-ons in the payout structure, but capping it with a maximum number of payouts based on unique players. I believe it is the best of both worlds.

On the one side, you have the camp that is in favor of basing the payouts on the number of unique players only. It has its advantages like increasing the payout amounts for those who cash and by allowing players who rebuy to have a chance of actually making money if/when they cash instead of just breaking even or losing money. (Counter argument: Why reward players who busted by giving them a chance to still make money? Answer: Why would they re-buy if they couldn't still make money?)

On the other side, you have the camp that is in favor of basing the payouts on the number of rebuys/re-entries and/or add-ons. It has its advantages in that more people will cash and those who did not rebuy get rewarded with more chances to cash and make money. (Counter argument: This system makes it less lucrative to re-buy; so doesn't it defeat the purpose? Answer: You don't have to rebuy even when you are allowed to do so, but if you do and cash, you at least make some of your money back.)

So, looking at an example:

• $50 Tournament (no tournament fee, championship tournament rake, dealer toke, etc.)
• Unlimited $50 Rebuys for first two hours
• $25 Add-On (half starting stack) between second and third hour

If 9 players enter with 7 rebuys and 8 add-ons, that's $1,000 in the prize pool. In a lot of tournaments that payout based only on unique players, this would pay 3 players about $550/$300/$150 or $500/$300/$200 (depending on preferred structure). Yet, based on 20 entry equivalents (9 entries + 7 rebuys + 1/2 for each of the 8 add-ons), it may pay 5 players $400/$250/$150/$100/50 (or something similar). Again, both have it's pros and cons, but I like the @BGinGA method that kind of compromises the two by counting entries/rebuys/re-entries/add-ons and calling it 20 entry equivalents (which would pay 5), but capping it at LESS THAN half the field. Therefore, it would pay 4 at somewhere around $400/$300/$200/$100.

To me, that's a good compromise. It increases the number of players who will cash (from 3 to 4), but still increases the payouts for the other places (which would have been $250/$135/$65 or $225/$135/$90 for a nine-player knockout tournament.

 

[TexRex]

Beaker, here is an issue I see with your idea. It would work, but it's going to lead to some awkward payouts.

I'll start with this. We are a recreational league, and our initial buy-in was $10 (it's now $30).

If at 10, you paid 4, either 1st gets less $, or 2nd and 3rd get less money, to have a 4th place payout. If you go 40%/30%/20%/10%, then 1st place makes more money at 9 than it does 10 or 11. Only at 12 does it go up (by $3). It's harder to win with 10 or 11 than it is with 9.

If you leave 1st and 2nd at 50/30, then 3rd, 4th, and 5th all get 10% -- no reward for finishing higher unless there is a chop for the 1st 3 spots.

If you are going to do it, then what I would do is develop a payout schedule so that 1st and 2nd never go down, and always go up at least a little, even if it's only $1. Let the lower spot take the hit.

I've done that. Our payouts are:
6-9 players -- 3 based on 3/2/1
10-14 players -- 4 based on 4/3/2/1
15-20 players -- 5 based on 5/4/3/2/1
21-27 players -- 6 based on 6/5/4/3/2/1
28-36* players -- 7 based on 7/6/5/4/3/2/1
* Only 3 tables, so only over 30 if we have people KO'd during rebuy period.

The ratios of payouts are not exact, but it never punishes a high paying spot for more players. In theory, it encourages chopping with 3 or more, but we rarely have 3-way or more chops.

Years ago, we added a payout slot by adding the next higher number on, so the payout formula equals the number of players as a minimum being paid.

This system works best when you have 2-3 tables. We kind of thought when we started it that a smaller number of players would likely lead to getting to play 2 in a night, but that has not worked out.

I would think if you have a system so that a rebuy and a cash doesn't return all their money, it's not worth it. At 10%, 20 entries would be required for a break-even cash at 10%. If that's the bottom 3 places, I think it will hurt people rebuying.