the perfect numbers are the same as it is with 18 man paid, not in $ amounts but in percentage incrementions. when we screw the 4-6th places we force players to gamble more = more aggresive played finaltables because we dont give fishes any reason to blind up a payout or two.

not paying 4-6th places will give all of us fewer 1-2-3 places and screw us immensely !

paying 15$ less to first place wont affect our roi at all.

with this structure the games will be harder to beat because of a ****ty finaltable payout !

+1 to r2w's structure. Thanks for all the hard work and effort guys!

Hazzy, I agree with you that rounded (and bigger) 1st prizes are much more attractive to recs however as already noted in this thread, it's not very practical due to the fact that the payouts are based on percentages and thus couldn't be handpicked for each buy-in level.

I agree with hazzy, that a mincash has to be more than just getting your buyin back. It takes an hour or so for the bubble to burst, I doubt a casual player will be happy with just breaking even after all their hard work — they want to feel like they've earned something.

If this whole is about making it better for recreational players then virtually zero profit for a mincash is just about the worst thing to do imo.

It'll be even worse in the 3.50+r, where in some games it might not even be enough to cover the cost of an initial double stack plus addon; you'll get people who make the money and still come out worse off.

Well before after playing for say an hour they got $0. Now they get >$0. I don't think rec's think in terms of profit, hourly (etc) otherwise they wouldn't be recs. They are more likely to think on the new bubble 'I'll just fold all my hands, then when I'm guaranteed to get my money back I'll start playing again - and what's with the all-ins. Damn idiots playing bingo poker'.

I dont understand what you mean, in my latest suggestion the pay jumps are very very close to what they are now...

Well, when Fred the Fish finshes 2nd in a $15 180 with the current payouts he wins $495.72, too. So I dont rly understand your point. And no, your payout structure iirc wasnt as rec and reg friendly as you might think it is.


I am not saying that my suggestion is the holy grail. It is a somewhat happy medium most people seem to agree with. And I think that this in itself is already worth a lot when we can find a consensus between regs who want the payout structure to change as little as possible and Stars who wants to pay out more spots in the future. Obv at the end it is only Sars who will decide which direction 180s will take in the future but I think we provide them a good option and I hope they will go with it.

you use 3-6th to pay for everything and dont understand what it will do to the dynamic of ft play.

even the dumbest fish can understand that when there isnt any money for being 4-6th they have to gamble and play aggressive from the start

This just isn't true. If anything it will make them nit up more... at least on a FT.

Ok, lets have a quick look at pay jumps (as a total % of the price pool) on their current state and what I sugest:

10-18 to 9: old 0.5 new 0.55
9 to 8: old 0.9 new 0.7
8 to 7: old 0.9 new 0.8
7 to 6: old 1.5 new 1.3
6 to 5: old 1.5 new 1.5
5 to 4: old 1.5 new 1.6
4 to 3: old 3.9 new 4.0
3 to 2: old 8.1 new 8.6

Pay jump between 2 to 1 keeps exactly the same.

So I dont see how there "isnt any money for being 4-6th" when it is so close to how it is already now. But as AWice said already redistribution of prize money is a zero sum game. You have to take it from somewhere when you pay out more spots. I took some from 10-18 (0.35% from each place) and since the overwhelming majority here wants 1 and 2 to stay exactly you have to take it from 9-3 in order to make it work.

This Game gets a new Dynamic, new bubble etc. and i doubt we can anticipate how it changes.
The samplesize of the Games played with new gamestructure: exactly 0. No experience. There are thousands of dollars on the line, maybe years of play with this structure we like / dont like eventually?

Turbo Tourney on POKERSTARS - $109 Tourney with 178 Players ~ 180 Man

01 - 21,5%
02 - 15,5%
03 - 11,75%
04 - 8,75%
05 - 6%
06 - 5%
07 - 4%
08 - 3%
09 - 2%
10 - 12 - 1,75%
13 - 15 - 1,5%
16 - 18 - 1,25%
19 - 27 - 1%

Why is a flat structure like this that bad?

01 - 25 %
02 - 16 %
03 - 12 %
04 - 10 %
05 - 8 %
06 - 5,5 %
07 - 3,5 %
08 - 2,5 %
09 - 2 %
10 - 18 - 1 %
19 - 27 - 0.62 %

Of course the first price attracts more rec when its bigger.
Its much easier, greater probabillity to get in the final 5 places and get paid bigger more often = same ROI, maybe bigger ROI when you adapt right, less Variance!
Sorry for bad English.

Sigh, once again flatter payouts doesnt mean same or higher ROI. And a flatter payout doesnt mean in itself that there is a greater probability to get in the final 5 places. Regs (and that are the one with ROIs) finish in the top spots more often than average but when you pay out less for top spots the ROI cant be the same. And no, top 3 payouts doesnt only attracts regs but also recs... why do some many recs play the Sunday Storm every weeks? Because of the fact how much they can get for a min cash or bc of that hughe price for first?

I like this most esp because of increasing pay jumps. Looks weird if 18th gets $5 more than 19th but 13th only gets $3 more than 14th etc. You guys seem to exclusively look at percentages whereas I assume fish will only care about actual $ values.

edit: I also dislike the idea of an exact buyin as a mincash; I'd think a bit more than that (as shown above) will suggest a fish to be actually profiting if they mincash.

you miss the point completely

Really can't understand why Stars insists on % payouts and wants to upset casual players like myself with these impossible to remember random decimal payouts. The top four of a $15 180 should be $750/$500/$300/$200 and that is non debatable if you use any common sense.

I agree with this, but (god knows why) stars made clear that it isn't an option.

Seems to me that about everyone (except Livedk) can live with R2W's structure, maybe someone can bring it under Baard's attention?

u guys are so dumb, the flatter the payouts the bigger a mistake a random makes



lol_180manregs

Especially since $60 180s pay exactly $3000 for 1st place, $2000 for 2nd and so on... But I'm sure I missed a point...

Does this equate to greater ROI?

+10000000 someone in here finally knows what they're talking about , but a much bigger point is, "the flatter the payouts the bigger a mistake a REG makes" also.

Pokerstars please ignore r2w's rubbish and just about most other payouts suggested in here, seriously if you guys in IOM are going to spread money to 27 players and not take a pretty good chunk off top 3 then please please get brain transplants before it's too late!!

LOL.

Yeah, by that logic, why don't we just make it as flat as possible and turn it into a huge double or nothing tournament? Bubble factors will be huge and recs and bad regs will be making bigger mistakes! Our ROI will sky-rocket!

GENIUS!

Looking forward to seeing the tables flooded with all these magical recreational fish who've been crying out for more places to be paid because they love a mincash, but who also want huge prizes for the top places! Why not take it a step further and give 80 buyins to first place, and give places 2-100 their buyin back? ICM is boring, let's just flip some coins for money!

I repeat, micky is right and the rest of you are wrong. The 10% payout structure of 180s is (was, I guess) a key factor in making them the most perfect MTSNGs on the internet, and now all this tinkering in the vain hope of appealing to contradictory demands is going to be a disaster.

Awice, I hope you're happy. The ring game regs are clearly a good deal smarter than the MTSNG community, but your personal mission to revolutionise poker is finally off the ground. If your next project is to campaign for changes to the rules of football or to persuade the Jack Daniel's brewery to re-think their whiskey recipe, I will hunt you down myself.

First, don't pin this on me, this was a long time coming. PS doesn't listen to me on many other issues so it's not like I am the shot caller. They are.

Second don't threaten me.

Most everyone here (myself included) wants it to stay at 18 people paid. Stars have already said that it's not negotiable, so we are trying to come up with the best 27 man paid alternative that we can.

Do you even know what Mickey is spruking? He's suggesting that a flatter payout structure will mean a greater ROI for good players. I know you're smarter than to think that's actually the case.

We have to tinker it. We'd prefer to tinker it to take money from the positions we finish less often than the positions we finish more often. Pretty simple.

Lets look at how many, say, $8/180s are played over a week, and how many are played over a week 1 month after the changes, or whatever. If volume dips then I will concede I was wrong. If volume increases it's likely that more recreational players are playing (which is good for 180s regs obviously) and then I was right.

So there will be objective evidence soon.

ehh, guess I misunderstood the tone of the thread and figured the consensus was that 27 places was a great idea. Even so, if it's a given that 27 places will be paid then it seems absurd to be paying for that by reducing the 3-6 place finishes and making a mincash pretty much break even.

btw my "threat" to Wice was fairly obviously light-hearted (unless he actually does have secret plans to destroy my sport and my alcohol next)