Tourney Field Payout (1 Viewer)

horseshoez

4 of a Kind
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
6,057
Reaction score
16,372
Location
California
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
 
...or this one better

1 - $500
2 - $200
3 - $120
4 - $80
5 - $60
6 - $40
7 - $40
 
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 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?
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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).
 
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%)
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
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
+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.
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
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
 
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).
 
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 :)
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom