Tourney Payout structure (2 Viewers)

[Bloody Marvelous]

I'm in full agreement with abby99 that you should cater to your group's specific needs and wants. You're hosting for them after all.

However, you said that in your opinion 50%/30%/20% and 40%/25%/20%/15% are the perfect examples of how NOT to do it. That sets up your structure as the PREFERED way to do it, and I couldn't agree less.

You're basing your structure on the principle that the jump from finishing in the money to the first paybump should be more than the difference between not cashing and making the money, which I feel is flawed reasoning. If you carry that design philosphy to large tournaments (like the WSOP), making the money could mean you make $100 back from your initial $10,000 buy-in.

When I (and I'm assuming most people) play in a tournament it's to outlast other players to win money, not to make a loss. By playing I accept that the buy-in is my investment to have a chance at a payday. If that payday is less than or equal to my initial investment I'd be just as disappointed as if I didn't make the money. That's why I recommend a payout structure where you make at the very least a profit of 50% on your initial buy-in when you make the money, and preferably around a 100% profit. I agree that there should be a curve in the payout structure, so that the paybumps become larger as you finish higher. Which is why I don't use a 40%/30%/20%/10% payout structure, but 42%/27%/18%/13%.

 

[Mojo1312]

FWIW: The pay-out structure that I used/devised for my home game is very similar to the one posted by Bloody Marvelous.

9 to 17 players pays-out top three: 9/6/4
18 to 26 players: 42.5/27.5/18/12

The 18 to 22 player tournament that I played in earlier this year paid out 25% of the field. Top five paid out: 45/25/15/10/5.

I had no real intentions of participating in this thread, but I won a small friendly eight player tournament the other night that I think makes a wonderful case in point on why there should not be a huge disparity between first and second place money.

I had 18BB's on the button and my opponent had 12BB's. We both smashed the flop. He checked his hand. I made a min bet into a limped pot. He called. He checked the turn. I made another half pot size bet. He moved all-in. Now I know I am behind, because this player would not push back at me without having a very strong hand, however, I also knew I had outs.. I made the call as a 64 to 36 dog solely because I would still have 6BB's left if I missed. I hit my card.

My point is that he outplayed me from start to finish in that crucial last hand. He got me to commit my chips as a 2 to 1 dog, and got the short end of the stick. I had no idea he had such a strong hand until his check/all-in move on the turn.

There was $430 in the pot. (8 players, one re-buy. The house kept $20)

I won $165 ($215 less my $50 buy-in.) My opponent won $80. ($130 less his $50 buy-in.)

I may still have won if his hand held up. Who knows? What I do know is that he did a great job playing his hand, and that I got a little bit lucky.

 

[bivey]

IMNSHO, ICM should only be used when players ask for a chop. You then calculate how much each player would get based on their current chipstack using ICM, and ask if they all agree to chop for those amounts. The amounts are non-negotiable though, so if you don't agree you need to play on.

I personally like/use:

1. 100% (2-4 players // Field payout percentage: 50%-25%)
   
2. 65% / 35% (5-9 players // Field payout percentage: 40%-22%)
   
3. 50% / 30% / 20% (10-16 players // Field payout percentage: 30%-19%)
   
4. 40% / 25% / 20% / 15% (17-24 players // Field payout percentage: 24%-17%)
5. 37.5% / 25% / 17.5% / 12.5% / 7.5% (25-33 players // Field payout percentage: 20%-15%)

I use something similar to this, but I round the amounts to the nearest $10 to keep the host sane.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I still have issues with your explanation. For one, bringing up a 50/25/25 payout is nonsensical, as is comparing that to a 50/30/20 payout.

I'm sorry I'm not communicating in a way that's getting my point across...

I didn't bring up 50/25/25 because that's a structure in common use. I brought it up because thinking about the theoretical difference in play caused by a theoretical 50/25/25 illustrates the effect that I'm talking about. And because I dislike that effect, I try to distance myself from that extreme.

Also, if you think that the extra 10% is too weak, I'm curious how you feel about this year's WSOP ME payouts:

415th-477th: $21,786
478th-549th: $19,500
550th-648th: $17,282
649th-1000th: $15,000

I think that after the 1001st player bubbled out, nobody gave a crap about finish order until another 350 dropped. Most people didn't really give a crap about finish order until 500 more people dropped.

So play was a grind until the bubble approached... and then play changed sharply... and then the bubble popped and play changed dramatically... and then play fell back into a (different kind of) grind for another 500 players or so.

However, as soon as the 1001st player bubbled out, all those 500 were happy to be able to report that they "cashed," and each of them are known by people who could then say they knew someone who "cashed in the main event," and that's good for the event, in the long term.

I also feel it's largely irrelevant to our discussion of payout structures for 10 or 20 people. It's a different beast. You can't even compare to the structure for the top three finishers of the WSOP ME. But if you do:

1st: $7,680,021
2nd: $4,469,171
3rd: $3,397,103

You'll notice that 2nd may only be 31.56% higher than 3rd, but it's about a million dollars - 104 buy-ins - higher. That matters, a lot. But you'll never have 2nd place be 100 buy-ins above 3rd place in a tournament with 10 buy-ins.

 

[Jake_rrr]

Here is what I have been doing. And I have one guy, after 7 seasons of playing, complaining that 2nd should be much less than what I have. Or 4-5 people playing 2nd should at least get their money back. This came up when we had 7 people. This Guy won and I came in 2nd. I am the host. He always gives me a little bit of his winnings because he knows from running other types of leagues that it's a nice gesture to toss the host a couple bucks. He won $90 and I won $50. He gave me $10 and then the next morning said 2nd should be paid less because he only made $80 and I made $60.

What do you think about this payout structure. It is rounded to nearest $5.

4 players - 100% - $80
5 players - 100% - $100
6 players - 65%/35% - $80/$40
7 players - 65%/35% - $90/$50
8 players - 65%/35% - $105/$55
9 players - 65%/35% - $120/$60
10 players - 50%/30%/20 - $100/$60/$40

 

[SixSpeedFury]

I like that

 

[SixSeven]

This is a similar concept to what we use for up to 30 players, except our awarded percentages are based on ratios, and we pay 25% on field sizes of 2-17 players, and 20% on field sizes of 18-30 players (rounded up).

I am a big proponent of the 12-player baseline 60/30/10 concept, where every pay step gets larger proportionally: 3rd gets 10% more than 4th, 2nd gets 20% more than 3rd, and 1st gets 30% more than 2nd). Two paid places would be 70/30 (2nd gets 30% more than 3rd, 1st gets 40% more than 2nd). It can also be extended to apply to larger fields that pay more places.

BM's #3 and #4 payouts above are perfect examples of how NOT to do it, imo:
re: #3 (50/30/20) -- it has never made sense to me to award 3rd place 20% more than 4th, yet only award 2nd place 10% more than 3rd -- and then award 1st 20% more than 2nd. My view is that 60/30/10 is a much better structure, for the reasons stated above.

Similarly, re: #4 (40/25/20/15) -- 4th gets 15% more than 5th, but 3rd only gets 5% more than 4th, same with 2nd only getting 5% more than 3rd, then 1st gets 15% more than 2nd -- makes no sense to reward 4th and penalize 3rd and 2nd. A better and more balanced structure is 50/30/15/5, where the pay jumps are 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%.


Using ratios (up to 21:15:10:6:3:1) to determine payouts, paid to the top 20-25% of the field size (rounded up):

field - paid - ratio - percentages paid
2-5, 1, - 100%
6-9, 2, (3:1), 75%/25%
10-13, 3, (6:3:1), 60%/30%/10%
14-22, 4, (10:6:3:1), 50%/30%/15%/5%
23-27, 5, (15:10:6:3:1), 43%/28.5%/17%/8.5%/3%
28-30, 6, (21:15:10:6:3:1), 37.5%/26.5%/18%/10.5%/5.5%/2%

Percentages are applied to the available prize pool, rounded to the nearest $5.

I found this really helpful. I went back to the beginning of 2015 on this forum subsection to look for payout percentages and structure, instead of posting a new thread. Thanks to @BGinGA for the logical payout reasoning. I have been doing 50/30/20 on STT and was going to continue that on a 2 table MTT, but wasn't sure how many more places to give, 4th or 5th. Now I know to do 4 places and what percentages. I appologize to those that say I have resurrected a very old thread. Maybe it will help some newer members.

 

[thePokerClub]

IMNSHO, ICM should only be used when players ask for a chop. You then calculate how much each player would get based on their current chipstack using ICM, and ask if they all agree to chop for those amounts. The amounts are non-negotiable though, so if you don't agree you need to play on.

I personally like/use:

1. 100% (2-4 players // Field payout percentage: 50%-25%)
2. 65% / 35% (5-9 players // Field payout percentage: 40%-22%)
3. 50% / 30% / 20% (10-16 players // Field payout percentage: 30%-19%)
4. 40% / 25% / 20% / 15% (17-24 players // Field payout percentage: 24%-17%)
5. 37.5% / 25% / 17.5% / 12.5% / 7.5% (25-33 players // Field payout percentage: 20%-15%)

My payouts are were very close to this for the first 2 years. In our 3rd year, I added an extra place paid to each of these which the players appreciated.

 

[Jaxen]

I read this thread and like what I see in the 54/28/18 and 48/24/16/12 breakdowns. 2nd gets 1/2 of 1st, 3rd gets 1/3 of 1st, 4th gets 1/4 of first ....
Used to do that then the players almost always went for a chip heads up instead of playing it out in our "trophy" events.
So we smoothed it out and do this:
1-5: Winner take all. Sometimes we do this with 6, it was good enough for Poker After Dark. Otherwise it's 66/34 (2 buy ins to 2nd, 4 to 1st)
7-8: 66/34
9-13: 50/30/20
14's a tough number so 4th gets their buy-in back, 50/30/20 to the rest
15-19: 45/25/18/12
20-25: 42/25/15/10/8
26-???: 38/22/15/10/8/6

 

[SixSeven]

My payouts are were very close to this for the first 2 years. In our 3rd year, I added an extra place paid to each of these which the players appreciated.

Thanks for responding. What were the percentages for the the payouts of 4th and 5th place?

 

[SixSeven]

I read this thread and like what I see in the 54/28/18 and 48/24/16/12 breakdowns. 2nd gets 1/2 of 1st, 3rd gets 1/3 of 1st, 4th gets 1/4 of first ....
Used to do that then the players almost always went for a chip heads up instead of playing it out in our "trophy" events.
So we smoothed it out and do this:
1-5: Winner take all. Sometimes we do this with 6, it was good enough for Poker After Dark. Otherwise it's 66/34 (2 buy ins to 2nd, 4 to 1st)
7-8: 66/34
9-13: 50/30/20
14's a tough number so 4th gets their buy-in back, 50/30/20 to the rest
15-19: 45/25/18/12
20-25: 42/25/15/10/8
26-???: 38/22/15/10/8/6

Hey @Jaxen this is very helpful. I just started a tourney series 3 months ago, and this month will be 2 tables instead of 1, which I why I looked up payouts thread. I found in the first 3 months, once it got down to heads up, players made a deal instead of playing it out bc it was late, and it sucks for self deal, when most of the time is shuffling, and dealing. But still, seeing your percentages here is very helpful. Maybe @BGinGA will be willing to weigh in again, although, he was pretty clear what he thought.

 

[BGinGA]

Maybe @BGinGA will be willing to weigh in again, although, he was pretty clear what he thought.

10 years later, still the best approach for our group. ymmv

 

[MC_CPA]

If its good enough for casinos why cant we copy it?

 

[Gunnar]

I have always used the same number of places paid
Number of tables +1 so 2 tables means 2+1= 3 players paid.

I like a flatter structure and I like to soften the bubble or add an extra bubble depending on how you view it. So the "bubble" gets paid their entry back, I find it eliminates people making the deal to pay the bubble.

For my 24 Person tournament
1 entry is taken out of the pricepool to pay the bubble. Then it would be 3 tables + 1 so
1 - 40
2 - 25
3 - 20
4 - 15
5 "Bubble" Refund

You have to take in mind that I do not want my structure to be very top heavy to attract the best players, I want my medium players to cash out sometimes, my goal is to run a fun tournament with multiple winners. Not a tournament that attracts players thinking profit won based on hours played Those players can just go the clubs for that kind of tournaments.

 

[thePokerClub]

Thanks for responding. What were the percentages for the the payouts of 4th and 5th place?

8% and 4% respectively.

 

[BGinGA]

If its good enough for casinos why cant we copy it? View attachment 1603789

Because what a profit-driven corporation does is rarely the best choice for a friendly home game.

Unless you don't mind screwing over your poker friends, reinventing (or thoroughly re-examining) the casino wheel is usually a good practice.

 

[TKEUofM]

So much of this is personal preference. My group has been playing for 20+ years. For our group it's about having fun with your friends and keeping people engaged and coming back. Nobody is going to get rich off a $60 buy in home game so I like to spread it out.

If we have 27 or more players I'm paying the Final Table of 9 where 9th gets their $60 back. We generally have 27-32 players and first place is around $500 with very balanced payouts down the line. We also have a "Head Hunter" prize where you get your $60 back if you eliminate the previous events winner.

This was the breakdown for our last 32 man event:

1st - $500
2nd - $280
3rd - $240
4th - $180
5th - $140
6th - $120
7th - $100
8th - $80
9th - $60

Head Hunter Prize - $60
Food and Drink - $160 (the game provides pizza, chips, and pop for the group)