Tourney Payout poll (1 Viewer)

[Mr Winberg]

I'm hosting a $25 (equivalent) freezout bounty tournament ($20+$5) on Friday with 18 confirmed players. $10 is taken from the pot (edit: in total, not per person) to pay for the location. Normally, for smallish stakes like this I wouldn't pay 5 unless we were at least 20 players, I would pay 4 and go with alternative nr 1 in the poll. Now that I've joined this amazing forum I thought I'd ask y'all what you think?

Also, I've always wanted to do a poll!

Thanks!

 

[MaxB]

I like a lot of places paid out, but for 18 people, 4 would be good enough. If your players are more casual poker players there for just some fun, then maybe do the 5 places.

 

[BGinGA]

I'm a 25%-of-field guy (maybe 20% if two tables), so I'd go with paying four spots (and your proposed numbers are fine).

 

[toynoob]

I'd pay 3 for 18 players. 50%-30%-20%

 

[Mr Winberg]

I'd pay 3 for 18 players. 50%-30%-20%

Are you sure? Nobody has voted for that!

 

[toynoob]

Are you sure? Nobody has voted for that!

It wasn't an option so how do you know Also I understand the big field payouts, I agree with Dave on the 25% fields if there is 40+ people. I just rather have a bigger pot for hours of play when its only $20 tournament.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I've used structures that pay both 4 and 5 players with 18 runners. Rebuys juice the prize pool, but dont count as extra players (I've seen it both ways). A $20 game is recreational and fun - the money is just a bonus. No need to be picky, just make sure everyone knows before the first card is dealt.

 

[BGinGA]

I'd pay 3 for 18 players. 50%-30%-20%

I understand the big field payouts, I agree with Dave on the 25% fields if there is 40+ people. I just rather have a bigger pot for hours of play when its only $20 tournament.

I found these responses funny, coming from somebody who typically wins the small-stakes tournaments he enters. Why? Because you can pay 4 places and still 'reserve' 50% for first you.

10-6-3-1 is one example.

 

[mummel]

I like more winners and a greater distribution of the pot. Keeps players coming back, otherwise losers (those that are outside the bubble) migrate to cash games and it’s tough to get repeat tourney customers.

I’d do 5-6 winners in this case.

 

[links_slayer]

Pay the top 9 in a double-or-nothing format.

 

[JustinInMN]

I think both options are good, really.

I voted for 5 but if in reality you get only 14-15 players, I would go back to 4

 

[Mr Winberg]

It wasn't an option so how do you know

I'm just busting your balls, though

 

[Gobbs]

Either four or five is fine. Paying less than four is probably a waste of time and a turn off to many for a couple of reasons.

1) Nobody likes finishing in the top 20 percent and getting nothing.
2) Because of 1, the players are probably going to create a chop and pay 4, anyway.

 

[Lieability]

I think 4 would be best and if they want to negotiate and take off from their payouts to cover the bubble it should be allowed

 

[Mr Winberg]

Thanks for the votes and replies! What ended up happening was that I got three more players the last day and a fourth the last minute, so we were 22 players! I paid 5 spots: 170, 110, 70, 50, and 30. (As mentioned, $10 was removed from the pot)

The winner got ten bounties, plus his own! Talk about a reaper!

 

[Kyle]

Find another place to host so that all buy in money stays in the prize pool.

In this spot I would pay 3 spots since much of the prize pool is being taken out.

1st 50%
2nd 30%
3rd 20%

 

[JTBass]

Cause your buyin is low I assume that this is a casual game with mostly casual players, so paying out more spots keeps the casual player more inclined to join the next one. looks like its more about the game of poker and bragging rights than it is about money. I have the same scenario for my monthly game with colleagues, its $30 buyin, +$5 for food as I grill something, and the buyin is just enough for the casual player to keep coming back. Its the equivalent of a night out of entertainment.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Find another place to host so that all buy in money stays in the prize pool.

Sorry, but not a chance. This is an extremely convenient location, my storage is right next to it so I can use my poker table and table toppers, if need be it can fit at least 33 players (3×8+9), perhaps even 41 (though that might be too crowded). No one is yet to complain, to the contrary I been told a million times by most players that they would be happy to pay a rake as well since they see how much effort I put into these nights. Any location remotely as good as this one would cost a lot more.

Just curious, why would that be so important? If I instead had a standard rake (for Swedish home games) of 10% or even as low as 5%, it would still be higher than just removing the rent cost.

looks like its more about the game of poker and bragging rights than it is about money.

Exactly this!

 

[Kyle]

Just curious, why would that be so important? If I instead had a standard rake (for Swedish home games) of 10% or even as low as 5%, it would still be higher than just removing the rent cost.

View attachment 299667




Exactly this!

Just my preference. Seems extreme to me that you have to pay for a location to play $10 poker and that almost half of the prizepool is taken out in order to pay for that location.

But if your group is fine with it then that is all that counts.

 

[JustinInMN]

In this spot I would pay 3 spots since much of the prize pool is being taken out.

10/440 is between 2-3% for the space in the picture that seems like a heck of a deal.

Just curious, why would that be so important? If I instead had a standard rake (for Swedish home games) of 10% or even as low as 5%, it would still be higher than just removing the rent cost.

I think it's fine, so long as players know. Without getting too political, the problem in the US is collecting for operating costs is what can put games without a license in legal jeopardy. I am assuming that is not a problem in Sweden.

 

[Kyle]

10/440 is between 2-3% for the space in the picture that seems like a heck of a deal.



I think it's fine, so long as players know. Without getting too political, the problem in the US is collecting for operating costs is what can put games without a license in legal jeopardy. I am assuming that is not a problem in Sweden.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the opening post. I read this as a $25 total tourney of which $10 comes out to pay for the space per player. If it is just $10 total then that is a not bad.

 

[longflop]

I pay 5 spots for my 18 person tourneys, but I have rebuys so the pot is a bit higher. With the $350 pot, I would do $20, $40, $60, $80 and $150.

 

[JustinInMN]

Maybe I am miss understanding the opening post. I read this as a $25 total tourney of which $10 comes out to pay for the space per player. If it is just $10 total then that is a not bad.

I admit on first read that's what I thought until I did the math on the poll options.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Seems extreme to me that you have to pay for a location to play $10 poker and that almost half of the prizepool is taken out in order to pay for that location.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the opening post. I read this as a $25 total tourney of which $10 comes out to pay for the space per player. If it is just $10 total then that is a not bad.

I admit on first read that's what I thought until I did the math on the poll options.

Haha, sorry for the confusion! Yes, $10 in total for a 24 hour rent, 1 pm to 1 pm the following day. Gives me time to prepare during the afternoon and to clean up the morning after. Sometimes, if nobody has booked the night before, I can even prepare the night before without paying extra.

I admit that if it had been $10 per person I would have taken you up on your advice to change location!

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

I'm a fan of flatter payouts as I typically host more social tourneys, so I would go with 5 payouts: 115, 85, 65, 50, 35

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

Rebuys juice the prize pool, but dont count as extra players

Interesting, I always consider rebuys as extra players and expand payouts based on number of total entries. I also offer add-ons, which serve only as additional juice.

Are your rebuys for the same cost and number of chips as your initial buy-in?

 

[Poker Zombie]

Our rebuys are the same price ($20), but the rebuy gets starting stack +10% (last weekend it was +25%, because the Empress Star set was maxed out on T1000 chips, so it was easier to give a T25,000 instead).

The nice thing about counting rebuys as new players is that first place can really make a $20 tournament worthwhile. Last weekend with 18 players, and an astounding 10 rebuys, the winner took home $250.

That's enough to cover the next 2 years of buy-ins!

 

[DoubleEagle]

Interesting, I always consider rebuys as extra players and expand payouts based on number of total entries. I also offer add-ons, which serve only as additional juice.

We do the same, except for us they are “re-entries.” Most of our group likes the flatter payout structure. We normally pay 25% of the total. The lesser skilled players appreciate the chance to make the money.

 

[Poker Zombie]

We do the same, except for us they are “re-entries.” Most of our group likes the flatter payout structure. We normally pay 25% of the total. The lesser skilled players appreciate the chance to make the money.

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of attendees get paid then? If each rebuy count as a "player", and you pay 25%, are you actually paying closer to 33% of the attendees?

 

[DoubleEagle]

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of attendees get paid then? If each rebuy count as a "player", and you pay 25%, are you actually paying closer to 33% of the attendees?

Yes. We have a wide disparity in skill levels. It helps to bring people back.