Moderator Note: This thread has been consolidated because the author created another four threads on this same topic (flattened payouts for MTTs).

Thread merged: Flatten WSOP main event payouts?

---

I know the main event has the flattest payout of all wsop events, but I wanted to know what players here think about making things even flatter. Below is just a quick example I did and wanted some feedback.

I noticed 9th this year only paid $811,000 but last year paid over 1 million. I kind of feel all final 9 should get 1 million. Also, my thinking is any tournament with more than 1100 players should cap 1st near 10% and work down from there. This year wsop main paid 13% to 1st. Also , my thinking is the ratio of pay from 1st and 9th should be about 6-7. Many online events skew this to 10,12, and even 20-1! With luck playing such a big role down the stretch, I think a flatter payout offers some consolation for the beats.

Below is what wsop main paid on the left, and percent of pool to each spot. on the right is a flatter suggestion. 747 were paid of 7319 starters. The flatter pay has only the top 4 spots paying less, and the other 743 paying more.

Also what do you think if they paid 1/9 the field instead of 1/10. 1/9 would pay 819 spots instead of 747. Paying 20k to 72 more players could be done by taking it only from 1st and 2nd place by cutting 1st from 7 mil to 6 mil, and 2nd from 5 mil to 4.5 mil.

Do you think if the main event winner "only" got 6 million, would it cause a big drop in entries and/or a drop in TV ratings?

At the other extreme, if main event was a winner take all affair, how many entries do you think they would get?

Thanks.

WSOP 2010 Event #57
$10,000 NL Holdem Main Event
Players 7319
buyin 10000 pay 747
prizepool 68798600
Pay $ Pct Flatter Pct
1 8944138 13.00046513 7000000 10.17462565
2 5545855 8.060999788 5000000 7.267589747
3 4129979 6.002998608 3500000 5.087312823
4 3092497 4.494999898 3000000 4.360553848
5 2332960 3.390999235 2500000 3.633794874
6 1772939 2.57699866 2000000 2.907035899
7 1356708 1.97199943 1500000 2.180276924
8 1045738 1.519998953 1200000 1.744221539
9 811823 1.179999302 1000000 1.453517949
10-12 635011 0.922999887 660000 0.959321847
13-15 500165 0.726998805 500000 0.726758975
16-18 396967 0.57699866 400000 0.58140718
19-27 317161 0.460999206 330000 0.479660923
28-36 255242 0.370998828 270000 0.392449846
37-45 206395 0.299998837 220000 0.319773949
46-54 168556 0.244999171 180000 0.261633231
55-63 138285 0.20099973 150000 0.218027692
64-72 114205 0.165999017 122500 0.178055949
73-81 94942 0.137999901 100000 0.145351795
82-90 79806 0.115999453 85000 0.123549026
91-99 67422 0.097999087 72000 0.104653292
100-171 57102 0.082998782 61000 0.088664595
172-243 48847 0.070999991 52000 0.075582933
244-315 41967 0.060999788 45000 0.065408308
316-387 36463 0.052999625 40000 0.058140718
388-459 31647 0.045999483 34000 0.04941961
460-531 27519 0.03999936 29000 0.042152021
532-603 24079 0.034999259 25000 0.036337949
604-675 21327 0.030999177 22500 0.032704154
676-747 19263 0.027999116 20015.27778 0.029092566

i completely agree. i know their will be deals. but playing heads up for 4mill is stupid

i mean, this is pretty much the worst idea ever

they flatten it the year Gold won it and everyone complained, eveyryone at the Ft made a million and Gold had a huge first prize of 12 mill. I thought this was the best structure it was really top heavy .
1 - $12,000,000
2 - $6,102,499
3 - $4,123,310
4 - $3,628,513
5 - $3,216,182
6 - $2,803,851
7 - $2,391,520
8 - $1,979,189
9 - $1,566,858

10-12 - $1,154,527
13-15 - $907,128
16-18 - $659,730
19-27 - $494,797
28-36 - $329,865
37-45 - $247,399
46-54 - $164,932
55-63 - $123,699
64-72 - $90,713
73-81 - $65,973

82-126 - $51,129
127-189 - $47,006
190-252 - $42,882
253-315 - $38,759
316-378 - $34,636
379-441 - $30,512
442-504 - $26,389
505-567 - $22,266
568-621 - $20,617
622-666 - $19,050
667-720 - $17,730
721-774 - $16,493
775-819 - $15,504
820-873 - $14,597

 

Originally Posted by Gags30

i mean, this is pretty much the worst idea ever

+1

 

Originally Posted by Gags30

i mean, this is pretty much the worst idea ever

This is beyond terrible. People keep saying its harder to make money at most levels than it used to be. Part of that is attributable to player improvement... part is also attributable to payout structures online which are absolutely terribad for the players and fantastically well designed for the sites... The more players who mincash for less than double their buyin, the more poker money goes to the sites as Rake instead of to the good players as profit. DUCY?

There's a mentality prevalent in this country that wants to take away from the achievers and give to everyone else. Flattening payouts more seems to fit with that mentality. Most importantly, it's bad for good players, gives the illusion of being good for bad players (who like stall-folding to their mincashes), and is phenomenal for whoever is collecting the rake because it just means the average player will pay more rake to sites/Harrah's before they go from robusto to busto, and pay less money to those who play the game for a living and make those deep runs.

You think it's ridiculous that the biggest event of the year has a $4m heads up? I think it's awesome. If you want to be the best, you have to win on the biggest stage, with all the pressure in the world. If you beat all that pressure and win, you should certainly be rewarded for your efforts, not stripped of a little bit more to make 2nd and 10th feel better about themselves

 

Originally Posted by zander

This is beyond terrible. People keep saying its harder to make money at most levels than it used to be. Part of that is attributable to player improvement... part is also attributable to payout structures online which are absolutely terribad for the players and fantastically well designed for the sites... The more players who mincash for less than double their buyin, the more poker money goes to the sites as Rake instead of to the good players as profit. DUCY?

Can you explain: The more players who mincash for less than double their buyin, the more poker money goes to the sites as Rake instead of to the good players as profit.

 

Originally Posted by czarcaesarxx

Can you explain: The more players who mincash for less than double their buyin, the more poker money goes to the sites as Rake instead of to the good players as profit.

If you are a regular weekend depositor who mincashes a lot, and there is a flatter payout structure, you mincash more often. You're still going to go broke because you suck, but you'll go broke by playing in a few more tournaments and mincashing a few more times before you bust your deposit. Therefore, more rake for the site out of your deposit and less of it going to successful players. Understood?

 

Originally Posted by jusqwan

i only say that the mincash should be more along the lines of 15k instead on 19.5k and allow for 9th place to be atleast a mill... this certainly adds to the hype of the tourney IMO if you can say that all FT players will be millionares after November...

This is terrible. You want people to play a 10k buyin for 4 days for half their buyin? There should be a standard here. Mincash should be double, 10% should get paid, at least half the money should go to the FT. I also believe FT of the ME should all be millionaires, but mincashing and profiting less than a buyin contributes to the problem I've stated above... it just bleeds you out more slowly, good for the site, bad for winning players...

 

Originally Posted by zander

If you are a regular weekend depositor who mincashes a lot, and there is a flatter payout structure, you mincash more often. You're still going to go broke because you suck, but you'll go broke by playing in a few more tournaments and mincashing a few more times before you bust your deposit. Therefore, more rake for the site out of your deposit and less of it going to successful players. Understood?

This is terrible. You want people to play a 10k buyin for 4 days for half their buyin? There should be a standard here. Mincash should be double, 10% should get paid, at least half the money should go to the FT. I also believe FT of the ME should all be millionaires, but mincashing and profiting less than a buyin contributes to the problem I've stated above... it just bleeds you out more slowly, good for the site, bad for winning players...

It is more rake for the site but its also like throwing the fish a carrot so when they do eventually go broke they are more likely to redeposit thus bringing more money into the game in the long run.

Disagree with OP. Only thing is I think FT should all be guaranteed a million. Stucture was changed from last year and sure they will change it again next year. Not sure why everyone always wants to flatten structures even more?

Min cash should be 20K and go from there, assuring all FT members get 1mil and 1st between 9-10mil

If I was running the WSOP, here's my payout structure for this year. Thoughts?

7,319 players= $68.8m prize pool

I'd pay 720 players, and do it like this...

1. $8,725,000
2. $5,000,000
3. $4,000,000
4. $3,500,000
5. $3,000,000
6. $2,500,000
7. $2,000,000
8. $1,500,000
9. $1,000,000
10-12. $600,000
13-15 $500,000
16-18 $400,000
19-27 $300,000
28-36 $250,000
37-45 $200,000
46-63 $150,000
64-90 $100,000
91-135 $75,000
126-180 $50,000
182-270 $40,000
271-360 $35,000
361-450 $30,000
451-540 $25,000
541-720 $20,000

Easy, all the dollar amounts are easily choppable with Bax and Sheets, you double up if you mincash, and you're a millionaire if you make the FT, and no one gets screwed. This took me 5 minutes... too bad the obsession with flattening the structure makes things worse and more difficult than this...

Zanders payout looks ok to me except I still feel 1st is way too much at 8,725,000 with 2nd at 5 million. The winner will have to pay 40% or more in taxes so it is wasted to put so much on top. The winner also will likely make a million or more in endorsements and get the title world champion which is priceless.

If I were to tweak that one, I would drop 1st to 7 million, then use the 1.725 mil to either pay 86 more places at 20,000 each or pay 45 more for $20,000 each, and use the 825,000 left over to beef up spots 91 to 180.

Zander, back when WSOP started the field sizes were often under 50 players. Thus first often paid 35-50% of the total prize fund. The main event was actually winner take all until 1978. When Amarillo Slim won in 1972 there was only 8 players. When Doyle won in 1976 there were only 22. But times have changed with massive multi-thousand player fields but payout structure changes have lagged behind. There is no longer a need to pay 35-50% to 1st place. 10% is more than enough for fields over 1100 players. Luck is the dominate factor when fields get that big. Even if you shoved with AA preflop every time and got one call, you would lose 94% of the tournaments you entered that have 8,000 players. So skill amounts to 6%, luck 94%. See my post below about this.

Nobody has commented on how many players would play tournaments if they were only winner-take-all. I suspect the main event would only get about 300 players with 75% of them either sponsored, backed, or taking pieces of each other. 95% of the fields would be pros and with the 6-10% vig for entry, everyone would eventually go broke. This implies there needs to be a flatter payout structure to attract more players.

Also, a note on the pokerstars Sunday million. 1st is often 240,000 or so with 8,000 players, yet 9th is only 12,000!! That is an insulting 20-1 ratio in pay. I say 6-7 ratio from 1st to 9th is much more fair. If players liked the payouts this top heavy like you imply, then why does almost every sunday million end up in a 3-6 way player deal at the end? Why can't poker sites take the clue and flatten their payouts? You even say this is in their best interest as they will make more in rake by keeping the money in circulation for more buyins. Kudos to Lee Jones at Cake Poker for having the flattest and deepest payout structures of any site. I wish more would follow his lead or that he stayed at pokerstars and implimented it there.

In case you missed why poker events are 90% luck, here was my post in the past explaining why.

You often hear players debate how much luck vs skill is involved in winning a poker tournament. I often hear 80% skill, 20% luck. But what does the math say?

In a 2048 player tournament, if you just shoved allin every hand, you would have to win 11 double ups in a row to win the tournament.
Now if you had AA every time you did this, you would expect to be an 80%-20% favorite over a likely calling hand such as KK.
As an 80% favorite, the chances to win 11 double ups in a row is only 8.59%. Thus even being skillfull enough to get your money allin as an 80-20 favorite everytime, you will still lose the tournament 91.41% of the time. One could then argue that tournamnets are 91% luck and 8% skill to win them. Granted, your ROI would still be 4000% (40x the buyin) if you played this well.

The luck factor will vary based on tournament size. Below is the luck factor in winning different size tournaments. Note that only in an 8 handed or fewer event does skill play a bigger role:

Field Size Luck Factor
16384 95.6%
8192 94.5%
4096 93.13%
2048 91.41%
1024 89.26%
512 86.58%
256 83.22%
128 79.02%
64 73.78%
32 67.23%
16 59.04%
8 48.8%
4 36%
2 20%

Too often tournament winners delude themselves by thinking how great they played, often forgetting the many 2,3,8 outers they spiked along the way to their victory. May the coin flips be with you.

Mr. Burke, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

In all seriousness, look at the payout structures of online tournaments of similar field sizes. What I've done is pretty accurate, and it's pretty obvious that winning players don't want the higher percentage of poker money going to rake that you applaud Lee Jones for. The Double Deuce, while it pays out an absurd 13.5% of the field, still manages to payout 15% to first. That's 10k players, a bit bigger even than the ME... so possibly it should be higher.

Let's put it this way. If you asked every winning player on the site if they'd prefer my payout structure or your super-flat structure that rewards 271st place juuuust a bit more than mine and ultimately results in a larger% of money going to the house than to the good players, the vast majority would be on my side. Successful players get to the top much more often than randoms do in terms of repeat visits to those top-heavy prize spots, and I'm sure most would rather not cash for 803rd and get 9 mil for 1st vs get 27 dollars more than their buyin back for a mincash and much less for first. TV audiences wouldn't like it either. Seems counterintuitive to do something that's terrible for us and for TV and good for the rake.

My point is the WSOP payouts are too top heavy for the good of poker. Online sites take their cue from WSOP so they are too top heavy as well. A small group of pros, many of whom have confused their good luck with thinking how well they play, might still argue for top heavy payouts. But with field sizes of several thousand in the 1K and main event of WSOP, and the big online sites, you are dealing with a new demographic. This new group of player are mostly recreational and their needs are different and since they make up the majority of players, they should be listened to. Those needs are flatter payouts and possibly more min cashes.

A simple suggestion by me is
1) limit 1st place to 10% of pool for events with 1100 or more player and work down from there.
2) have ratio of payout from 1st to 9th be no more than 6-7 to 1. Currently it is often as high at 20-1
3) extend payouts from 1/10 (10%) of field to 1/9 (11.1%) (note sunday million already pays about 14.5%)
4) have min cash be 2x the buyin