Tourney Percentage of Field Payouts You Prefer

What Percentage Of The Field to Payout In Multi-Table Tournaments?

  • 10%

    Votes: 7 17.5%
  • 12%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 15%

    Votes: 11 27.5%
  • 18%

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • 20%

    Votes: 20 50.0%

  • Total voters
    40
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
2,829
Likes
2,108
Location
Tampa, FL
#1
In my local market there's been a disturbing trend at some venues where they not only pay just 10% of the field in events, but 1st place wins more than 2nd AND 3rd combined.

I've always been a fan of flatter payout structures. So many events these days result in chops 4, 6 or even 8 ways sometimes due to the massive discrepancies between each payout (plus the general shallowness of stacks at the final table)

I'd be interested to see how everyone else feels as far as preferred percentage of the field you like to see paid in multi-table tournaments?
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
16,703
Likes
18,330
Location
Atlanta
#3
Different answers for home vs casino events.

I prefer 20%-25% payouts for home games (generally 1 to 3 tables max.), but no issue with dropping that down if events are larger.

Prefer 15% for large casino events, with a payout structure that provides incentive to do well (vs min-cash) but not so top heavy that luck determines where most of the cash ends up vs skill.

Any event that is routinely chopped multiple ways is using a payout structure that the players simply don't want.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
2,829
Likes
2,108
Location
Tampa, FL
#4
Anything larger than 30 players - 10%. Smaller fields should be flatter. Paying 2 players in a field >10 but under 30 is stupid.
Sit n' Go's paid 30% of a single-table field. I'm not looking for that in a multi-table event, but I think 20% of the field would be beneficial for the poker economy overall.

Some of my events locally are two-day events where half the frigging field on Day 2 still goes home with nothing. That just sucks.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
186
Likes
149
Location
Hinckley MN
#5
More is better for the poker economy right?

I think my local casino usually plays closer to 10%. Id maybe play if the payout was flatter because Ive been so close to the bubble a lot. Id at least be break even if they'd pay a few more places. So I quit Hold'em tourneys, only played a couple PLO tourneys recently.
 

detroitdad

Royal Flush
Joined
Nov 6, 2014
Messages
14,717
Likes
14,659
Location
Michigan
#6
Different answers for home vs casino events.

I prefer 20%-25% payouts for home games (generally 1 to 3 tables max.), but no issue with dropping that down if events are larger.

Prefer 15% for large casino events, with a payout structure that provides incentive to do well (vs min-cash) but not so top heavy that luck determines where most of the cash ends up vs skill.

Any event that is routinely chopped multiple ways is using a payout structure that the players simply don't want.
This. I was going to say almost the exact same thing (but without all fancy numbers :) )
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
2,829
Likes
2,108
Location
Tampa, FL
#7
More is better for the poker economy right?

I think my local casino usually plays closer to 10%. Id maybe play if the payout was flatter because Ive been so close to the bubble a lot. Id at least be break even if they'd pay a few more places. So I quit Hold'em tourneys, only played a couple PLO tourneys recently.

I think if the events paid more people you'd see some larger fields, definitely more attendance in other events due to players who cashed, increased activity in cash games, etc.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
1,335
Likes
1,349
Location
Nah Hampshah
#8
I'm a big fan of deep payouts structures. As @honkydevil said, it's better for the poker economy (and player retention) to spread the money around a little more.

I'm not such a big fan of flat payout structures, though. The exact percents should vary depending on field size and number of payouts, but I like to see first place get a big chunk of the purse—50% in small fields, maybe 40% give or take in larger fields.
 

ChaosRock

Full House
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
3,992
Likes
5,058
Location
Pure Michigan
#10
I'm a big fan of deep payouts structures. As @honkydevil said, it's better for the poker economy (and player retention) to spread the money around a little more.

I'm not such a big fan of flat payout structures, though. The exact percents should vary depending on field size and number of payouts, but I like to see first place get a big chunk of the purse—50% in small fields, maybe 40% give or take in larger fields.
How do you reconcile those two statements, Jim? Would you have a bunch of people breaking-even?

If payment is top heavy, and you like that, by definition it cannot be deep. Or at least not unless a bunch of people get just a tiny bit of the money.
 

trever

3 of a Kind
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
597
Likes
640
Location
Cincinnati
#11
For the regular tournament player, flatter payouts are better as it let's them get a return on their investment more often. For the occasional player (ie. me), a steep structure is better. I'm not interested in winning a couple of bucks, I want that big payout when I bink the whole thing.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
2,829
Likes
2,108
Location
Tampa, FL
#12
I believe WSOP Europe or maybe the PokerStars Europe events utilize an 18-20% payout structure.

First can still be a nice payday in multi-day fields, but I can't see giving first place 40-50% of the prize pool, that's just nuts to me. The lowest payouts in those flatter structures usually get 1.5x their buyin, give or take.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,470
Location
Orlando, FL
#15
+1 for home tourney payouts of 20-25%. That's exactly what my group does, and with the typical 2-3 tables it still results in a first place prize of 45-50%.

I'm not much of a casino tourney player, but I like 15% more than 10%. Spreading the pool out is better overall for the poker economy (perhaps at the cost of pro players having a slightly lower ROI).
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
1,335
Likes
1,349
Location
Nah Hampshah
#16
How do you reconcile those two statements, Jim? Would you have a bunch of people breaking-even?

If payment is top heavy, and you like that, by definition it cannot be deep. Or at least not unless a bunch of people get just a tiny bit of the money.
See below.

+1 for home tourney payouts of 20-25%. That's exactly what my group does, and with the typical 2-3 tables it still results in a first place prize of 45-50%.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
1,335
Likes
1,349
Location
Nah Hampshah
#18
Thank you. It wasn't clear you were only talking about very small fields. I thought it was tourneys in general.
The exact percents should vary depending on field size and number of payouts, but I like to see first place get a big chunk of the purse—50% in small fields, maybe 40% give or take in larger fields.
So I do mean for the principle to apply in general, but yes, adjusting up or down according to field size and payout depth (and rebuys).
 

ChaosRock

Full House
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
3,992
Likes
5,058
Location
Pure Michigan
#19
So I do mean for the principle to apply in general, but yes, adjusting up or down according to field size and payout depth (and rebuys).
I understand man, but those two forces pull in different directions way more often than not. Unless it's a very small field in which a large percentage gets paid (still, like 3 people) AND the winner gets a big chunk of the money, it is impossible to have a top heavy payout structure that is at the same time deep. Unless, as I said, a bunch of players break-even or even get back less than the entry.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
1,335
Likes
1,349
Location
Nah Hampshah
#21
I understand man, but those two forces pull in different directions way more often than not. Unless it's a very small field in which a large percentage gets paid (still, like 3 people) AND the winner gets a big chunk of the money, it is impossible to have a top heavy payout structure that is at the same time deep. Unless, as I said, a bunch of players break-even or even get back less than the entry.
I get it. I suppose what I'm trying to say is to make the payout structure pretty deep, but to avoid crippling first-place money too much to accomplish it.

For example, the biggest fields in the WSOP Main Event have paid out only 10–15% of the purse to first. Granted, it's a large amount of money in an absolute sense, but it's too small a percent IMO to use in general. First shouldn't get 50% in a case like that, but something like 30% would be more reasonable. The remaining 70% is still a lot of cash to spread around.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
968
Likes
668
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
#22
I usually pay out 25-30% for 2 tables but the lowest places paid are getting just above what they bought in for. Above 2 tables I pay 20-25%.

When I get multi-table fields most players are casual players and there to have fun. The top positions still get a nice pay day.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,470
Location
Orlando, FL
#23
I understand man, but those two forces pull in different directions way more often than not. Unless it's a very small field in which a large percentage gets paid (still, like 3 people) AND the winner gets a big chunk of the money, it is impossible to have a top heavy payout structure that is at the same time deep. Unless, as I said, a bunch of players break-even or even get back less than the entry.
So to put some hard numbers out as an example: My group pays top 2 (66/34) for <8 players, top 3 (50/30/20) for 8-15, and top 4 (45/30/15/10) for 16-24. This works for a small MTT like ours, but might not scale well beyond three tables.

I can't remember what we do for 25+ because we haven't had a turnout that large in years. :(
 

Poker Zombie

Straight Flush
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
8,079
Likes
11,143
Location
Nashville-ish, TN
#24
I could not answer poll because I'd prefer 25-30% payouts, and I would like 15% payouts, depending on the event.

Slot machines rule in casinos. Why? Because they pay back small amounts over and over. That keeps people returning. Players returning to play poker is good for our game. So low cost buy-in (entry level) tournaments should pay more players with a flatter structure. This would allow locals to "grind" the tournaments, but would be useless for the real sharks on a $ per hour basis.

Pro-level tournaments (WSOP, WPT, etc) are where the "life changing" money is at. Those can get away with steep pay tables, paying 15% of the field and buying the winner a mansion und a yacht.

In-between tournaments, like Venetian DeepStacks, or other $300 entry tournaments should pay somewhere in the middle, around 20%. Binking scoops 5 figures.
 

Mojo1312

3 of a Kind
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
636
Likes
326
Location
Maine
#25
Any event that is routinely chopped multiple ways is using a payout structure that the players simply don't want.
I find the blind structure is what prompts players to seek a multi way chop.

I think if the events paid more people you'd see some larger fields, definitely more attendance in other events due to players who cashed, increased activity in cash games, etc.
I have said this before in other threads. Give me an example of what you consider a fair pay-out structure. Let's use 200 players.

You are also a proponent of freeze-out tournaments, yet you point to a tournament that has re-entries when making your case for paying out a larger percentage of the field. (https://www.pokerstars.com/en/blog/...-poker-tour-update-163416.shtml?no_redirect=1 )

Does this mean you favor a re-entry/re-buy format if as a result a greater number of players finish ITM?
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
16,703
Likes
18,330
Location
Atlanta
#26
I find the blind structure is what prompts players to seek a multi way chop.
Not true, at the root cause. If the payout structure was extremely flat, there would be no reason to chop, regardless of how aggressive the blind structure, or how short the stacks in relation to the current and future blind amounts. It's the disparity in payouts that drives the chop incentive
 

Mojo1312

3 of a Kind
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
636
Likes
326
Location
Maine
#27
Not true, at the root cause. If the payout structure was extremely flat, there would be no reason to chop, regardless of how aggressive the blind structure, or how short the stacks in relation to the current and future blind amounts. It's the disparity in payouts that drives the chop incentive
Certainly true, if such pay-out structures existed in MTT's at Foxwoods or any other casino.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
2,829
Likes
2,108
Location
Tampa, FL
#29
I have said this before in other threads. Give me an example of what you consider a fair pay-out structure. Let's use 200 players.

Ok, so 200 players and paying top 20% of the field so 40 players will cash.

Buyin towards prize pool: $1 (not including poker room fee)
PRIZE POOL: $200

1st:

1 = $30
2 = $22
3 = $15
4 = $12
5 = $10
6 = $8.25
7 = $6.50
8-10 = $5
11-15 = $4
16-20 = $3.25
21 - 30 = $2.50
31-40 = $2


So even the min-cashers get 2x their buyin. The payjumps are shallow enough that it should actually encourage players to fight to chip up, rather than trying to survive to the next pay jump, which might actually speed up progress towards the final table. Now, putting this into further perspective:


Buyin going to prize pool: $100 (not including poker room fee)
PRIZE POOL: $20,000

1st:

1 = $3,000
2 = $2,200
3 = $1,500
4 = $1,200
5 = $1,000
6 = $825
7 = $650
8-10 = $500
11-15 = $400
16-20 = $325
21 - 30 = $250
31-40 = $200


Buyin going to prize pool: $1,000 (not including poker room fee)
PRIZE POOL: $200,000

1st:

1 = $30,000
2 = $22,000
3 = $15,000
4 = $12,000
5 = $10,000
6 = $8,250
7 = $6,500
8-10 = $5,000
11-15 = $4,000
16-20 = $3,250
21 - 30 = $2,500
31-40 = $2,000


And if you look at this event: http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=r&n=495971

There were 620 entrants and first place paid 116K. If you divide that by 3 (to arrive at roughly 200 entrants) first place would get 38K and the percentage of the field paid in that event was 12.5% compared with my version with 20% of the field paid and first still snags 30K


You are also a proponent of freeze-out tournaments, yet you point to a tournament that has re-entries when making your case for paying out a larger percentage of the field. (https://www.pokerstars.com/en/blog/...-poker-tour-update-163416.shtml?no_redirect=1 )

Does this mean you favor a re-entry/re-buy format if as a result a greater number of players finish ITM?
Oy vey that's a stretch of an argument. I'm in favor of flatter structures, so I pointed to an event that was using a higher percentage payout structure, which isn't related to the actual format of the tourney. You do realize that the vast majority of tournaments these days are rebuy or re-entry and it's practically impossible to find true freezeouts anymore except larger events like the WSOP Main, right?
 
Top Bottom