I don't think he is that's the problem.

I feel this issue is only going to be solved by voting with your feet...

It would help us understand the problem if you didn't crop the entrants and how much the mincash is compared to the pay jumps :P

i mean mincash in a 22$ is 27$ is what i wanted to show.

I think he's pointing out here that 27.5$ mincash on a 22$ tourney just looks ridiculous

If it takes 3 hours to reach the money I want to see at least 2x the buy-in for a min cash. The second problem is that if I play for another hour or two I want to double that again. As bad as min-cashing for 1.2 times can be, it is just as bad to play for 5-6 hours and hardly earning 2 or 3 times the buy-in.

yeah exactly my thoughts as well

Yep agreed change the payouts...need a big target up top

and the min cashes are currntly grotesque

I feel the same way, the problem is the math doesn't add up for us.

If we have a larger mincash, we force a huge ICM bubble, and sit around and play for pennies for another two+ hours.

If we pay more for the ~50th place finishes, we either have to pay less for the winner or less for the mincash.

If we have deeper stacks, we play ITM for a long time without winning much more money. If we have shorter stacks we get to it faster but stacks get shallow.

That's the problem with changes. There's often times no solution that makes everything right.

fix it.

I've never seen huge icm bubbles for a mincash with the old payout strucures doggz?

Yeah maybe in the super tuesday or something there is more of an importance but people still put pressure on people at the bubble and it doesn't or never really did drag on forever, especially with the field sizes of the bigs/hots bounties builders i do not see people thinking of a "huge icm bubble for a 2x mincash" when there are 5k runners etc

I changed my mind, ultra fast lowering gtd strategy and ultra slow increasing gtd strategy and less money for 1st prize (because no one looks at it) was a good decision. Thanks for enlightening me.

the guarantee thing seems even more disappointing when we had to hear from luke that MAIN FOCUS is put on guarantees at the moment (??)
inb4 guarantees dont matter

You obviously weren't playing formats likes the Big 109 or Big 162 where players played well. Just because you don't see players play well at micros doesn't mean ICM doesn't exist.

I don't think lowering 1st place is good for MTTs long term, but eh...

Someone hijacked Doggz account, can someone please check up on him? I'm worried.

that was actually wanted by regs in order to balance tables when the payjump occurs.
places 18-27 paid same money = bubble with 19 players left = 7max, 6max, 6max tables
places 17-26 paid same money = bubble with 18 players left = 9max, 9max tables

A bit late but I would like to thank Luke for the changes to the blind structure. Thanks for listening to your player base.

Furthermore, I definitely agree with previous posts re the payout structure, it's just gross.

The current tournament I'm playing, buyin $1.10, min cash $1.63, second cash $1.87 for what will be around 3 hours work. The only thing I could suggest is taking 5% off the top 4-5 cashes and distributing it to the bottom 3 pay brackets. Without doing the maths, it roughly sounds sensible.

Chris

I`m playing B109 almost daily and what`s the point of getting 1.3x-1.4x the initial buy in when min cashing? http://prntscr.com/b2bkrj
Before these payouts we will get smth around 200$ when mincashing in this Big 109.
So now, even if we get that mincash 2 times of 3 played or 3/5 we are still loosing money.

If min cash is bigger, first place is smaller. Which is the worst?

Sorry for the double post, I can't edit my previous post.

The current payout structure for the big $1.10;



So gross! Please see my suggestions in my previous post.

Not with the old payouts because now more people are paid in the same fields than before.

And another question for Luke:
Why you messed up all the satties even for Scoop? I wanted to play some for the Super Tuesday but i can`t find anything.
We have to choose from Big Splash were you rake rebuys/addons, some 215$ and 162$ which are kinda big for a 1050$ BI.

It doesn't have to be that way. I always felt that the tournaments on Stars were too top heavy and too flat at the same time.

I would like if they reduced the number of places paid and reduced the winnings for first price and spread it a bit more evenly. I find Full Tilts structure much better

$27 min cash in a $22 PLO turbo re entry? I mean for **** sake.

For example, in the big $1.10 has a 1st place of $370, if you take 5% off making it $352.50 I don't think it's a huge difference at all and quite livable.

So as my suggestion says, take 5% off the top 4 places and distribute it to the bottom 3 payouts. My workings out make it $49.45 (5%) moved from the top 4 places and distributed to the bottom 3 pay brackets like this, $24 to the min payout, $18 to the second last payout group and $7.45 to the third last. it would look like this using the current big $1.10 as the example;

Old:
Top 4: - Bottom 3 payout groups:
$375 - $2.18 (216 to 278th)
$272 - $1.84 (279 to 350th)
$198 - $1.55 (351 to 431st)
$144

Proposed:
Top 4: - Bottom 3 payout groups:
$356.25 - $2.30 (216 to 278th) $2.30
$258.4 - $2.09 (279 to 350th) $2.09
$188.1 - $1.80 (351 to 431st) $1.80
$136.8

Obviously I did this in about 10 minutes so it can look much better. But I think it looks much better, increasing the min cash by around 17%, second last by around 10% and a small increase to third last of around 6%. I think it feels a lot better and can be played with a bit more so the min cash is closer to 2x the buy in.

Chris

what are u talking about doggz? the payouts before changes had bigger mincash and bigger first place