Should the average player break even in tournament play? I'd argue no, but I can see how in a regular home game tournament setting, that might make sense.
In a large MTT? No. In a regular home game, where you’re always working to make sure 14-18 guys show up? Probably.
By average, I really mean the median player... If I have a roster of about 30 players, I expect 5-6 of them to do very well in the game over the course of a year, and 5-6 of them to do terribly. The rest will be up a little, breaking even, or down a little.
I expect to lose at least half of the worst players over time, because it just gets demoralizing—even when the real point of the game is mainly social. Some of these will take a 2-3 month break, then come back for more.
Anyway, this is how I figured my structure:
Say the typical attendance is around 15 (which makes the math easier—it is usually more like 16/17). And the typical participant plays 15 out of a possible 25 times.
If I’m paying a third of the players (5 payouts), a decent but not exceptional player should get in the money roughly a third of the time, based on their average play, and occasional rungood. Maybe a little less, but for the sake of argument, 5 out of 15 tries.
If those five cashes are evenly distributed, they will finish one time annually in each of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th places.
So, if they are investing $1,500 in the game per year ($100 x 15, ignoring bounties, high hands, etc., which are extras anyway), those five cashes should total ~$1,500 if I want to maintain interest for the “average” guy.
With 15 players, payouts of 650/400/250/100/100 works out.
I’m sure there is some arguable logic here, but that's how I worked it. Payouts for fewer/more players are adjusted up/down based on how many show up in a given week. (18 players pays 750 for 1st, 14 more like 550.)