Tourney Field Payout

horseshoez

Flush
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
1,759
Location
USA
Been searching to try and find if there is a thread that has table of range of players in tournaments and respective payouts. For the lift of me, I can't seem to find it if it exists. If one has a payout table depending on the number of players, would be easier.

Essentially, trying to make some changes to our league's existing payout structure and not payout so many especially in MTT. Our software is currently setup to pay top 8. Not really big fan. Using the 25% of the field rule for home games, that sits right at 6.5.

Does this look about right?

1 - $520
2 - $220
3 - $120
4 - $80
5 - $60
6 - $40
 

horseshoez

Flush
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
1,759
Location
USA
...or this one better

1 - $500
2 - $200
3 - $120
4 - $80
5 - $60
6 - $40
7 - $40
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
21,748
Reaction score
30,079
Location
Atlanta
I prefer the 1-3-6-10-15-21-28.... sequence, paying 25% of the field at 20 or fewer players 22% if 21-25, and 20% if greater than 25 (rounded up).

For 26 players, that's paying $1040 over 6 places (using 21-15-10-6-3-1, divided by 56) and rounded to the nearest $5 increment:
  1. 37.4%, or 389 = $390
  2. 26.8%, or 279 = $280
  3. 17.9%, or 186 = $185
  4. 10.7%, or 111 = $110
  5. 5.4%, or 56 = $55
  6. 1.8%, or 19 = $20
I'm not a big fan of very top-heavy payouts, since most of the skill in a tournament is simply getting to the top few spots, and luck plays a pretty big factor in determining the actual finishing order of the final three places. Big pay jumps also encourages players to chop the prize pool, because of the large variance in three-handed and heads-up play.
 

horseshoez

Flush
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
1,759
Location
USA
I prefer the 1-3-6-10-15-21-28.... sequence, paying 25% of the field at 20 or fewer players 22% if 21-25, and 20% if greater than 25 (rounded up).

For 26 players, that's paying $1040 over 6 places (using 21-15-10-6-3-1, divided by 56) and rounded to the nearest $5 increment:
  1. 37.4%, or 389 = $390
  2. 26.8%, or 279 = $280
  3. 17.9%, or 186 = $185
  4. 10.7%, or 111 = $110
  5. 5.4%, or 56 = $55
  6. 1.8%, or 19 = $20
I'm not a big fan of very top-heavy payouts, since most of the skill in a tournament is simply getting to the top few spots, and luck plays a pretty big factor in determining the actual finishing order of the final three places. Big pay jumps also encourages players to chop the prize pool, because of the large variance in three-handed and heads-up play.
Agreed. I like that sequence better than the other one I used in the other thread. That one was just doubled all the way through, tapers off at the top to avoid top heavy payouts as you mentioned. I did notice 6th is $20, however buy in is $40. Shouldn’t 6th be getting his money back?
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
21,748
Reaction score
30,079
Location
Atlanta
Shouldn’t 6th be getting his money back?
Not in my world -- I have never understood the logic of that argument.

That initial entry fee cash is gone, anything you earn afterwards is a plus. Winning is winning, and winning any amount of $$ is better than not winning any $$.... and a better showing than 20 other players who earned zero.

If you want the lowest cash to be roughly equal to the buy-in, the payout schedule needs to be closer to 15% of the field.
 
Last edited:

horseshoez

Flush
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
1,759
Location
USA
To me, doesn’t really matter. Mostly boils down to preference in that area of first in the money being equal to entry or not.
 

Eriks

Two Pair
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
293
Reaction score
380
Location
Sweden
Not in my world -- I have never understood the logic of that argument.

That initial entry fee cash is gone, anything you earn afterwards is a plus. Winning is winning, and winning any amount of $$ is better than not winning any $$.... and a better showing than 20 other players who earned zero.

If you want the lowest cash to be roughly equal to the buy-in, the payout schedule needs to be closer to 15% of the field.
Never thought of it this way, kinda like it though. I have always paid at least equal of the buy-in amount to the smallest cash. Maybe it comes from all the big tournaments on tv where a cash always (?) equals at least a modest profit.
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
1,786
Location
Sweden
I've reduced my nr of ITM places. Lets say I have 25 players paying $20 each. Earlier I would do something like this
190
130
80
50
30
20

The problem was that the player in 6th who got his money back still wasn't happy. "6 hours and I have nothing to show for it!" (I know, he did win 20, but tell that to him... I can only imagine the reaction to winning half!). Even the fifth place finisher was a bit pouty.

So I've sacrificed the lowest paid place (he's gonna be a bit more upset as the bubbleboy, but so be it) to make the mid-ITM finishers happier:
190
130
80
60
40

(With bounties I flatten the payouts a bit, to compensate for the winner most likely (but not necessarily) having won a bunch of bounties)
 
Last edited:

DoubleEagle

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,822
Reaction score
5,215
Location
Salina, KS
I prefer the 1-3-6-10-15-21-28.... sequence, paying 25% of the field at 20 or fewer players 22% if 21-25, and 20% if greater than 25 (rounded up).

For 26 players, that's paying $1040 over 6 places (using 21-15-10-6-3-1, divided by 56) and rounded to the nearest $5 increment:
  1. 37.4%, or 389 = $390
  2. 26.8%, or 279 = $280
  3. 17.9%, or 186 = $185
  4. 10.7%, or 111 = $110
  5. 5.4%, or 56 = $55
  6. 1.8%, or 19 = $20
I'm not a big fan of very top-heavy payouts, since most of the skill in a tournament is simply getting to the top few spots, and luck plays a pretty big factor in determining the actual finishing order of the final three places. Big pay jumps also encourages players to chop the prize pool, because of the large variance in three-handed and heads-up play.
How do you determine the divisor (56)? This appears to need to change based on the number of players.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
21,748
Reaction score
30,079
Location
Atlanta
How do you determine the divisor (56)? This appears to need to change based on the number of players.
It is the sum of the digits in the sequence.

If paying four places, then 10-6-3-1 is used (dividing by 20).
 

Mojo1312

Flush
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
929
Location
Maine
I try to arrange the pay-outs so last place profits from his performance. Flatter pay-out structures are not that popular, even though they are friendlier.

$1040 prize pool

1st - $310 (30%)
2nd - $235 (22.5%)
3rd - $180 (17.5%)
4th - $130 (12.5%)
5th - $105 (10%)
6th - $80 (7.5%)
 

Legend5555

Straight
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
835
Reaction score
1,152
Location
Georgia
I prefer the 1-3-6-10-15-21-28.... sequence, paying 25% of the field at 20 or fewer players 22% if 21-25, and 20% if greater than 25 (rounded up).

For 26 players, that's paying $1040 over 6 places (using 21-15-10-6-3-1, divided by 56) and rounded to the nearest $5 increment:
  1. 37.4%, or 389 = $390
  2. 26.8%, or 279 = $280
  3. 17.9%, or 186 = $185
  4. 10.7%, or 111 = $110
  5. 5.4%, or 56 = $55
  6. 1.8%, or 19 = $20
I'm not a big fan of very top-heavy payouts, since most of the skill in a tournament is simply getting to the top few spots, and luck plays a pretty big factor in determining the actual finishing order of the final three places. Big pay jumps also encourages players to chop the prize pool, because of the large variance in three-handed and heads-up play.
How did you come up with using the triangular number sequence for payouts?
 

Dix

Pair
Joined
Nov 28, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
142
Location
W.Poland, Maine
Not sure what you mean by "triangular".... but the sequence is..... +2 / +3 / +4 / +5 / etc.

So....

1
1(+2) = 3
3(+3) = 6
6(+4) = 10
10(+5) = 15
and so on...
 

danopoker

Sitting Out
Joined
Jan 26, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
36
Location
Massachusetts
Yes, so you can build a triangle out of 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, and so on.... number of chips. :) The +1 / +2 / +3 sequence is the number in each additional row.
 

AWenger

Flush
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
1,625
Reaction score
1,803
Location
Washington DC
I'm not a big fan of very top-heavy payouts, since most of the skill in a tournament is simply getting to the top few spots, and luck plays a pretty big factor in determining the actual finishing order of the final three places. Big pay jumps also encourages players to chop the prize pool, because of the large variance in three-handed and heads-up play.
+1

I prefer the 1-3-6-10-15-21-28.... sequence, paying 25% of the field at 20 or fewer players 22% if 21-25, and 20% if greater than 25 (rounded up).

For 26 players, that's paying $1040 over 6 places (using 21-15-10-6-3-1, divided by 56) and rounded to the nearest $5 increment:
I did notice 6th is $20, however buy in is $40. Shouldn’t 6th be getting his money back?
I'll admit, I didn't understand the number sequence thing at first, but now I see how it works, and I was fooling around with sequences/payouts in a spreadsheet, and if you start with a base number of 3 instead of 1 in the sequence, (3-5-8-12-17-23-30...) it results in a payout right around the buy-in for the last place cash for 26 or 30 players.

If I understand the system correctly, the number in the sequence is also where the jump occurs in the #of players paid, so with the 3-5-8-12-17-23-30 sequence:
8-11 players pays 3 places
12-16 players pays 4 places
17-22 players pays 5 places
23-29 players pays 6 places
30 pays 7 places. (I stopped there assuming 30 players max.)

Assuming $40 buy in, no rebuys for # of players:
26 players - prize pool of $1040
6th 4.4% $45.88
5th 7.4% $76.47
4th 11.8% $122.35
3rd 17.6% $183.53
2nd 25.0% $260.00
1st 33.8% $351.76


30 players - prize pool of $1200
7th 3.1% $36.73
6th 5.1% $61.22
5th 8.2% $97.96
4th 12.2% $146.94
3rd 17.3% $208.16
2nd 23.5% $281.63
1st 30.6% $367.35
 
Last edited:

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
21,748
Reaction score
30,079
Location
Atlanta
Not sure what you mean by "triangular".... but the sequence is..... +2 / +3 / +4 / +5 / etc.

So....

1
1(+2) = 3
3(+3) = 6
6(+4) = 10
10(+5) = 15
and so on...
Close...
Sequence is actually +1 / +2 / +3 etc.

0
0(+1) = 1
1(+2) = 3
etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dix

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
21,748
Reaction score
30,079
Location
Atlanta
+1



I'll admit, I didn't understand the number sequence thing at first, but now I see how it works, and I was fooling around with sequences/payouts in a spreadsheet, and if you start with a base number of 3 instead of 1 in the sequence, (3-5-8-12-17-23-30...) it results in a payout right around the buy-in for the last cash for 26 or 30 players.

If I understand the system correctly, the number in the sequence is also where the jump occurs in the #of players paid, so with the 3-5-8-12-17-23-30 sequence:
8-11 players pays 3 places
12-16 players pays 4 places
17-22 players pays 5 places
23-29 players pays 6 places
30 pays 7 places. (I stopped there assuming 30 players max.)

Assuming $40 buy in, no rebuys for # of players:
26 players - prize pool of $1040
6th 4.4% $45.88
5th 7.4% $76.47
4th 11.8% $122.35
3rd 17.6% $183.53
2nd 25.0% $260.00
1st 33.8% $351.76


30 players - prize pool of $1200
7th 3.1% $36.73
6th 5.1% $61.22
5th 8.2% $97.96
4th 12.2% $146.94
3rd 17.3% $208.16
2nd 23.5% $281.63
1st 30.6% $367.35
Correct. You can also substitute alternate starting numbers (other than zero) or alternate incremental increases (other than 1), including decimal values.

Also useful for constructing structures/systems for awarded points, in addition to just calculating cash payouts.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
21,748
Reaction score
30,079
Location
Atlanta
I skipped the last loser for efficiency's sake :D
I understand, but the concept is that each payout is progressively higher..... including the first one. :)
 

Legend5555

Straight
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
835
Reaction score
1,152
Location
Georgia
Since BG has me on ignore, can someone please ask him what made him use the triangular number sequence for payouts? I'm legit curious. I see it used all the time in board games, but have never seen it applied this way. It's a great idea, and I'm just wondering if he did that on his own or got it from somewhere.
 

horseshoez

Flush
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
1,759
Location
USA
Since BG has me on ignore, can someone please ask him what made him use the triangular number sequence for payouts? I'm legit curious. I see it used all the time in board games, but have never seen it applied this way. It's a great idea, and I'm just wondering if he did that on his own or got it from somewhere.
I like it too it’s spot on.
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
1,786
Location
Sweden
I prefer the 1-3-6-10-15-21-28.... sequence, paying 25% of the field at 20 or fewer players 22% if 21-25, and 20% if greater than 25 (rounded up).

For 26 players, that's paying $1040 over 6 places (using 21-15-10-6-3-1, divided by 56) and rounded to the nearest $5 increment:
  1. 37.4%, or 389 = $390
  2. 26.8%, or 279 = $280
  3. 17.9%, or 186 = $185
  4. 10.7%, or 111 = $110
  5. 5.4%, or 56 = $55
  6. 1.8%, or 19 = $20
I'm not a big fan of very top-heavy payouts, since most of the skill in a tournament is simply getting to the top few spots, and luck plays a pretty big factor in determining the actual finishing order of the final three places. Big pay jumps also encourages players to chop the prize pool, because of the large variance in three-handed and heads-up play.
I really like this approach! You can tweak the sequence to your liking and still apply the same procedure. Just a totally random question though: How did you come up with using the triangular number sequence for payouts? Did you come up with that on your own or did you get it from from somewhere? I've see it used a bit in board games.
 

Dix

Pair
Joined
Nov 28, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
142
Location
W.Poland, Maine
Maybe it's because I'm just a dumb*ass backwoods mountain redneck, but I don't see the "magic" here.... Are you sure you guys aren't over-thinkin' it?

The actual "sequence" is the same one I learned when I was barely done crapping in my diapers.... follow along....

One...
Two...
Three....
Four....
Five....
(that's as good as it gets for now, I need the other hand to drink my coffee)

It just so happens that when you apply that sequence to the math it comes out 1-3-6-10-15

Then again I could be all wrong and it could be a major conspiracy.... In that case, I blame the Russians.

Hey wait!!!!! that's it...... BG is a Russian agent. :D
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
1,786
Location
Sweden
Maybe it's because I'm just a dumb*ass backwoods mountain redneck, but I don't see the "magic" here.... Are you sure you guys aren't over-thinkin' it?

The actual "sequence" is the same one I learned when I was barely done crapping in my diapers.... follow along....

One...
Two...
Three....
Four....
Five....
(that's as good as it gets for now, I need the other hand to drink my coffee)

It just so happens that when you apply that sequence to the math it comes out 1-3-6-10-15

Then again I could be all wrong and it could be a major conspiracy.... In that case, I blame the Russians.

Hey wait!!!!! that's it...... BG is a Russian agent. :D
What I like isn't the sequence per se, it's the idea to normalize your sequence of choice into percentages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dix

Dix

Pair
Joined
Nov 28, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
142
Location
W.Poland, Maine
Yea, it works great & makes it simple to boot... which is always a good thing in my book.

Maybe I should have quoted & cropped, but my post above was specifically with regard to the (ahem, cough, cough) "totally random question" part. :D
 

markleteenie

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
4,130
Reaction score
6,289
Location
Mile up
I prefer the 1-3-6-10-15-21-28.... sequence, paying 25% of the field at 20 or fewer players 22% if 21-25, and 20% if greater than 25 (rounded up).

For 26 players, that's paying $1040 over 6 places (using 21-15-10-6-3-1, divided by 56) and rounded to the nearest $5 increment:
  1. 37.4%, or 389 = $390
  2. 26.8%, or 279 = $280
  3. 17.9%, or 186 = $185
  4. 10.7%, or 111 = $110
  5. 5.4%, or 56 = $55
  6. 1.8%, or 19 = $20
I'm not a big fan of very top-heavy payouts, since most of the skill in a tournament is simply getting to the top few spots, and luck plays a pretty big factor in determining the actual finishing order of the final three places. Big pay jumps also encourages players to chop the prize pool, because of the large variance in three-handed and heads-up play.
I hadn't considered a flatter structure like this and I like it.

Regarding 6th place, I've not played in casino tournaments so I don't know how this done, but I've never paid out a place that was less than the buy-in.
Personally it's a bit of a bummer if you play to the "money" and then still net lose. (I understand with rebuy tournaments, that can happen quite easily).
 

SteelDoor

Sitting Out
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
28
Reaction score
15
Location
Oregon
I run weekly $40 Buy-in with 36 players and the prize pool is usually between $3,000 - $3,800
I pay
1st 34%
2nd 24%
3rd 17%
4th 12%
5th 7%
6th 6%
The final table always agrees to a $100 bubble so I don't add that place in... ($40 buy-in $40 re-buy $20 add-on) and since nobody has change I always round by $20 per place what ever feels best.
At that point nobody cares :)
 
Top Bottom