Tourney Payout structure for a 6-7 player table (1 Viewer)

[PsychoFeather]

Hello!

I am about to host my first tournament game of NLHE with a 20€ buy in. what should the payout structure be? how many players should be getting a price and what % of the total should those players get? this is probably a really newbie question but I really don't know.

 

[Eriks]

I would do 2 prizes split around 70/30

 

[PsychoFeather]

I would do 2 prizes split around 70/30

alright! and from what I understand re-entering doesnt add more money to the pot, it just lets you have another go at it?

 

[detroitdad]

I would do 2 prizes split around 70/30

this^^^

 

[upNdown]

In a situation like this, I like to see second place get double their buy-in and first place gets the rest. Which works out to about 70/30.

 

[upNdown]

alright! and from what I understand re-entering doesnt add more money to the pot, it just lets you have another go at it?

Huh? Of course it adds more money to the pot.
Generally, rebuys won't change the percentage payouts at all, but re-entries will. Not that the distinction matters much for a single table home tournament. But the point is that if everybody re-bought once, so you had 240-280 in the pot, some people would consider that 12-14 entries and think it was more appropriate to pay 3 spots. It's totally up to you, and either way is fine.

 

[PsychoFeather]

Huh? Of course it adds more money to the pot.
Generally, rebuys won't change the percentage payouts at all, but re-entries will. Not that the distinction matters much for a single table home tournament. But the point is that if everybody re-bought once, so you had 240-280 in the pot, some people would consider that 12-14 entries and think it was more appropriate to pay 3 spots. It's totally up to you, and either way is fine.

Isnt there a difference between re-entry and re-buy into a tournament or am I mixing something up?

 

[upNdown]

Isnt there a difference between re-entry and re-buy into a tournament or am I mixing something up?

In a tournament in a casino, when you rebuy, you do so from your seat, so you stay in that same seat. It doesn't count as a new entry, so it doesn't affect the number of people getting paid. But the money goes into the prize pool (increasing the amount of each payout), and generally there's no rake on that cash.

When you re-enter, you go back to the window, buy a new ticket, and you get assigned to a seat that's likely at a different table. It counts as a new entry, so it will affect the number of people getting paid, and of course, the casino takes a rake.

 

[PsychoFeather]

In a tournament in a casino, when you rebuy, you do so from your seat, so you stay in that same seat. It doesn't count as a new entry, so it doesn't affect the number of people getting paid. But the money goes into the prize pool (increasing the amount of each payout), and generally there's no rake on that cash.

When you re-enter, you go back to the window, buy a new ticket, and you get assigned to a seat that's likely at a different table. It counts as a new entry, so it will affect the number of people getting paid, and of course, the casino takes a rake.

ah, thanks for clarifying! This way I wouldnt make a huge mistake when I host the tournament!
Not sure everyone would re-buy(I guess this is the correct phrase to use for a home tournament) so I would assume that the pot would be somehting like 10 entries worth of cash. would you still reccomend top 2 getting paid or top 3?(half the players) and if 3 players what would you reccomend the % being for a 20€ buy in and probably 10 players worth of cash in the middle being a total of about 180-200€

 

[upNdown]

ah, thanks for clarifying! This way I wouldnt make a huge mistake when I host the tournament!
Not sure everyone would re-buy(I guess this is the correct phrase to use for a home tournament) so I would assume that the pot would be somehting like 10 entries worth of cash. would you still reccomend top 2 getting paid or top 3?(half the players) and if 3 players what would you reccomend the % being for a 20€ buy in and probably 10 players worth of cash in the middle being a total of about 180-200€

Totally up to you. If I were paying 3, I'd probably set the percentages at something like 50/30/20. I'd rather see two get paid, personally, for a field of that size. But there's a good argument that for home games, to keep everybody interested in coming back, that you're better off paying more people.
Again, either two or three is fine and it's totally up to you.

 

[PsychoFeather]

Totally up to you. If I were paying 3, I'd probably set the percentages at something like 50/30/20. I'd rather see two get paid, personally, for a field of that size. But there's a good argument that for home games, to keep everybody interested in coming back, that you're better off paying more people.
Again, either two or three is fine and it's totally up to you.

alright! will keep that in consideration,as we are all long time friends I will talk to them about the two options and see if we can come to an agreement that way. Either way, now I know what options we have!

 

[upNdown]

alright! will keep that in consideration,as we are all long time friends I will talk to them about the two options and see if we can come to an agreement that way. Either way, now I know what options we have!

Just, whatever you decide, make sure you have structure and payout rules in place, written down, before you shuffle up and deal.
An important one is, at what level are rebuys shut off. This is a tough one with friends, because some guy will get felted after the cutoff, and want to rebuy. And you, as friend and host, will want to let him. And whoever is the chipleader (and already counting his prize money) will say no, we have to stick to the rules.

 

[PsychoFeather]

Just, whatever you decide, make sure you have structure and payout rules in place, written down, before you shuffle up and deal.
An important one is, at what level are rebuys shut off. This is a tough one with friends, because some guy will get felted after the cutoff, and want to rebuy. And you, as friend and host, will want to let him. And whoever is the chipleader (and already counting his prize money) will say no, we have to stick to the rules.

Yeah, I will write everything down so everyone has the same ground to stand on so to say.
the structure I was thinking of following was one I saw on youtube that actually got me to this site, he plays with a 20k starting stack and these are the blinds.Once the blinds are about to go to 200/400 you are no longer allowed to re-enter is what I would say is a good point?(that's the point he is going with as well)

 

[JustinInMN]

I was thinking of following was one I saw on youtube that actually got me to this site,

Another satisfied @Chris Manzoni customer.

 

[Mr Winberg]

When I host tourneys with rebuys I have prepared a payout structure in advance where the number of payout spots depend on the number of buy-ins + rebuys. For example, in you case it could look like:
6: 80€, 40€
7: 100€, 40€
8: 100€, 40€, 20€
etc...
The reason I don't do percentages is because I like using cash for tournaments (because it feels cooler ) instead of swish (Swedish Venmo), and I don't want to prepare change.

But I agree with @upNdown that it's totally up to you if more rebuys should increase the spots or just the price pool.

Regarding Hobbyphilic's structure, my only complaint is that the jump from L9 to L10 is larger than the jump from L8 to L9. IMO the jumps should stay the same or increase but never decrease, I'm a bit OCD in that regard.

Also, unless you extend the level durations for the later levels, there is a long warm up and then the blinds start increasing more rapidly when the "real" tournament poker starts (I'm thinking of the massive 6-10-16 jumps).

Also, I think the rebuys end a bit early, with 20k stacks a starting stack has 67 BBs during the last rebuy entry. I usually shoot for around 30, i.e. with 10k stacks I would indeed let the 150/300 level be the last with rebuys.

Please note that these are just personal opinions, you need to find your own preferences by testing these things out.

 

[JustinInMN]

Personally I prefer a simple structure of playing levels that multiply each chip in play by 2-4, 3-6, 4-8, 6-12, and 8-16 with optional 1-1, 1-2, or 1-3 levels at the start.

So for example

25-50, 25-75, 50-100, 75-150, 100-200, 150-300 (remove T25)

200-400, 300-600, 400-800, 600-1200, 800-1600 (remove T100)

And so on.

As for payouts. I do prefer to go on entries rather than players.

I typically do something like this
2-4 winner take all
5-8 1st 70%, 2nd 30%
9-12 1st 50%, 2nd 30%, 3rd 20%
13-18 1st 45% 2nd 25%, 3rd 18%, 4th 12%

Okay to round the totals to some increment if you want to avoid change.

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

Yeah, I will write everything down so everyone has the same ground to stand on so to say.
the structure I was thinking of following was one I saw on youtube that actually got me to this site, he plays with a 20k starting stack and these are the blinds.Once the blinds are about to go to 200/400 you are no longer allowed to re-enter is what I would say is a good point?(that's the point he is going with as well)View attachment 543695

I'd just add level 25-75 to avoid dividing the stacks depth by 2 after just one level.

I usually run 20 buyin tournament (but freezeout).
When 6 players : 1st gets 80 and 2nd gets 40
When 7 players : 1st gets 90 and 2nd gets 50

 

[LotsOfChips]

In a home tournament, and depending on the players in your group and the number of players on any given night, you might want to consider whether increasing or decreasing the payout structure will affect the likelihood of players returning. If some players think that they will never get paid because there are two strong players and only the top two have a shot at the money, they may decide to watch reruns of GOT instead.

Some groups I play in will increase the number of payouts if there are x number of total buyins (including rebuys), while others base it on the number of bums in seats. I personally prefer the latter, but it's up to you as Tournament Director (TD) to decide.

With 6-7 players (or total buyins, depending on your decision on the above), two places paid is 33%-29% of the players getting paid, which is fine IMO. Increasing the payout to three places paid changes it to 50%-43%, which is probably a bit generous. Stronger players might be upset that they get rewarded less, but weaker players have a better shot at the money and may return more.

With a couple more players (or buyins, again depending on your decision as TD) in the mix (8-9), the numbers change to 25%-22% for two positions paid, 38%-33% for three.

Personally for a one or two table tournament I like to keep things centered around the one in three ratio (one position paid for 2-4 players, two paid for 5-7, three for 8-10, etc. You can work the amounts for each payout so that the lowest payout gets their buyin back plus a little more (based on no rebuys). For example with 2 paid in a 6 player game, and if you set the payout structure to 70-30 as suggested above, top place gets 4.2 times the buyin, while second place gets 1.8 times the buyin. With 9 players and three places paid, you could go 50-30-20 for 4.5x, 2.7x, 1.8x.

Bottom line is that you as TD get to set the structure to whatever you want, but those decisions will affect the flavor of the game, and therefore the likelihood of players wanting to return for more.

Best of luck with hosting, and I hope you and your group have a blast!

 

[PsychoFeather]

In a home tournament, and depending on the players in your group and the number of players on any given night, you might want to consider whether increasing or decreasing the payout structure will affect the likelihood of players returning. If some players think that they will never get paid because there are two strong players and only the top two have a shot at the money, they may decide to watch reruns of GOT instead.

Some groups I play in will increase the number of payouts if there are x number of total buyins (including rebuys), while others base it on the number of bums in seats. I personally prefer the latter, but it's up to you as Tournament Director (TD) to decide.

With 6-7 players (or total buyins, depending on your decision on the above), two places paid is 33%-29% of the players getting paid, which is fine IMO. Increasing the payout to three places paid changes it to 50%-43%, which is probably a bit generous. Stronger players might be upset that they get rewarded less, but weaker players have a better shot at the money and may return more.

With a couple more players (or buyins, again depending on your decision as TD) in the mix (8-9), the numbers change to 25%-22% for two positions paid, 38%-33% for three.

Personally for a one or two table tournament I like to keep things centered around the one in three ratio (one position paid for 2-4 players, two paid for 5-7, three for 8-10, etc. You can work the amounts for each payout so that the lowest payout gets their buyin back plus a little more (based on no rebuys). For example with 2 paid in a 6 player game, and if you set the payout structure to 70-30 as suggested above, top place gets 4.2 times the buyin, while second place gets 1.8 times the buyin. With 9 players and three places paid, you could go 50-30-20 for 4.5x, 2.7x, 1.8x.

Bottom line is that you as TD get to set the structure to whatever you want, but those decisions will affect the flavor of the game, and therefore the likelihood of players wanting to return for more.

Best of luck with hosting, and I hope you and your group have a blast!

thank you!

 

[Blind Joe]

I prefer 65/35 for a 2 place payout and 60/30/10 for 3 places just because I don't like how much 1st places drops in those structures that start 70/30.

We only ever play STTs and only payout 3 places for 8+ players but I have been considering lowering the threshold to 7+ to help keep people interested by spreading the prize pool because this year 2 players have dominated the winnings.

 

[SixSpeedFury]

I prefer 65/35 for a 2 place payout and 60/30/10 for 3 places just because I don't like how much 1st places drops in those structures that start 70/30.

We only ever play STTs and only payout 3 places for 8+ players but I have been considering lowering the threshold to 7+ to help keep people interested by spreading the prize pool because this year 2 players have dominated the winnings.

Interested to hear everyone's take on a 65/35 ; 60/30/10, etc. payout as opposed to a 70/30 ; 50/30/20, etc. payout. Especially from the TD master himself, Mr. @BGinGA.

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

Interested to hear everyone's take on a 65/35 ; 60/30/10, etc. payout as opposed to a 70/30 ; 50/30/20, etc. payout. Especially from the TD master himself, Mr. @BGinGA.

Here's the payout sheet I use for my tournaments.
Since I mainly play freezeout it's expressed in money (assuming 10 bucks buyin but it's easy to translate to your buyin).

As you can see, the move from 2 ITM to 3 ITM only slightly drops the winnings of the 1st place, but not that much.

 

[Blind Joe]

Interested to hear everyone's take on a 65/35 ; 60/30/10, etc. payout as opposed to a 70/30 ; 50/30/20, etc. payout. Especially from the TD master himself, Mr. @BGinGA.

Well for what it's worth, here's the major point in my rationale: if your threshold for paying out 3 places is 8 and you have a 7 handed game, 1st gets 70% and 2nd get 30%; however, if one more player joins the game 1 place drops 20% while 2nd place doesn't drop anything, with 3rd place getting the 20% 1st place would have had previously.

When I go with 65/35, both first and 2nd drop 5% to make up for 3rd place 10%.

Maybe my reasoning/maths is wrong, but it always felt to me that 1st place lost out too much if another player joined the game.

 

[Mr Winberg]

if one more player joins the game 1 place drops 20%

1st drops 20%, but it's a bit of apples to oranges since they are percentages of different totals. The more players, the more each percentage is worth. For a $10 freezout the first prize drops only $9 in your example.

while 2nd place doesn't drop anything

Using my reasoning above, 2nd doesn't only "not drop", it increases! (By $3 in your example)

But I do see your point, the winner gets less for a bigger accomplishment. Which brings us to:

Interested to hear everyone's take

The way I do it kinda solves this. I will only hand out cash in 100kr bills (worth ~$11). I usually have 200kr buy-ins (+ bounty, but that's a separate discussion) and 50kr bills are a bit rare, so I only use 100kr bills.

I set the structure in amounts, not percentages, and I never reduce a prize when adding players. I never give the last money winner less than a buy-in, preferably more than a buy-in.

100 kr buy-in:
7 players: 500, 200
8 players: 500, 200, 100
9 players: 500, 300, 100

Sure, it's not fare that first place wins the same when more people are playing. But neither is it fair to have me scramble to get change in Sweden's cashless society!

For 200kr buy-ins this becomes a less blunt tool since the lowest increase is half a buy-in instead of a full buy-in.

 

[BGinGA]

I typically pay out the top 25% of the field. Usually 65/35 for two places, 60/30/10 for three, and 50/30/15/5 for four..... all rounded to the nearest $5.

For those that prefer flatter structures with more distribution, I advise paying 33% of the field using 60/40, 50/30/20, and 40/30/20/10 (or 45/30/20/5).

 

[Blind Joe]

TIL Sweden is an (almost entirely) cashless society.

 

[TheWhat]

We used to do $20 Tourneys. If 6 we paid $90 to 1st and $30 to 2nd. If we had 7 players we would go $90 to 1st - $35 to 2nd - $15 to 3rd.

Any Rebuys would get broken down as an extra $10 to 1st, and $5 to 2nd and/or 3rd.