More players this year. 800k less for 1st.

This year:
1 $2,200,000
2 $1,750,000
3 $1,350,000
4 $1,000,000
5 $700,000
6 $450,000
7 $300,000
8 $201,300
9 - 10 $150,000
11 - 12 $130,000
13 - 14 $115,000
15 - 16 $100,000
17 - 20 $87,500
21 - 24 $75,000
25 - 32 $66,000
33 - 40 $59,000
41 - 48 $52,000
49 - 56 $45,000
57 - 64 $38,000
65 - 72 $33,000
73 - 80 $28,000
81 - 112 $23,500
113 - 144 $20,000
145 - 176 $17,500
177 - 224 $15,000

Total prize pool: $14,831,300

Last year:
1 $3,000,000
2 $1,700,000
3 $1,100,000
4 $750,000
5 $550,000
6 $400,000
7 $300,000
8 $214,000
9 $175,000
10 $150,000
11 $135,000
12 $120,000
13 $105,000
14 $95,000
15 $85,000
16 $75,000
17 - 18 $65,000
19 - 20 $60,000
21 - 22 $55,000
23 - 24 $50,000
25 - 32 $40,000
33 - 40 $35,000
41 - 48 $30,000
49 - 56 $27,500
57 - 64 $25,000
65 - 72 $22,500
73 - 80 $20,000
81 - 99 $17,500
100 - 130 $15,000
131 - 199 $12,500

Total Prize Pool: $12,674,000

Why are they paying so many players? I would only pay the top 180, so you can give an extra $500K to 1st place, but they payouts from like 11-50 are much better.

It depends.

If you are a busto nit yay.

If you are a warrior massive nay.

Yay, more fish gets money and keeps playing like Sunday Million. Yay, the money stays in the community.

Nay, we want huge prizes and huge winners (got both last year PCA).

Is it still paying 10% or are they paying 15% of the field...

I think more likelihood of cashing the better it is to attract the bottom of the barrell poker players... what is the diff once your over $2m your done for anyway car house, boat, women., who needs the extra 800k anyway...lol

last year is better i think.
whats the field size?

Poker tournaments need to have a consistent payout structure.

I guess this is the traditional view, but I've never really agreed. It seems to me that PokerStars have gradually come to the conclusion that slowing the rate at which all the money goes to Elky/Deeb (or whoever) is simply better for the long-term health of the game.

I think it's relatively unambiguous that, on average, the steeper the payout structure, the greater is the % of the total prizepool that is likely to leave the poker economy. Less money in the poker economy is bad...

(This is illustrated very simply by considering the extreme case where every player cashes for the amount of his buy-in... whereby presumably $0 leaves the poker economy).

Obviously the only thing that makes tournament poker profitable is the recreational players. The longer you can keep them solvent playing tournaments the better. For this reason I'd much rather have them min-cashing more often and continuing to chase the dream, than never cashing and deciding that roulette is more fun because at least they win there 1 in 37 spins...

I've felt for a while now that tournaments should pay approx. 20% of the field, with dramatically flatter payouts at the top. This would significantly reduce overall variance for donkamenteurs, and I think make it far more sustainable as a profession. (Particularly for those who have to pay tax on tournament winnings without the ability to smooth win/losses over multiple years).

I really think this is the way to go.

I look forward to hearing some well-reasoned arguments for the flipside though...

Haha Jokerstars is extending their "try to let everyone who enters cash" mentality to their live events now also. Good job Jokerstars. Their payoutstructures are far and away the worst. Just proves they're greedy and only care about keeping people in action so they continue to generate rake.

Whoa...so what your trying to suggest is this Joker Stars of which you speak of, is a business...

wow

payout structure is really easy to fix, make 145th-224th :10k; 81st-144th: 15k.

i dunno...every position this year gets more than last year except the winner. really isn't as bad as people are making it out to be

I agree with this almost completely, although I would probably give a little more money to 81st-100th.

winner take all
imo

didnt read thread or first post or anything but i heard earlier, def nay...****in stupid, i wouldnt have ven flown down if i dint hear it was 3 mil las tyear...should have been 4 this years

1 $2,200,000
2 $1,750,000
3 $1,350,000 = 5.3 million (-10%)
4 $1,000,000
5 $700,000
6 $450,000
7 $300,000
8 $201,300
9 $150,000 = 2.8013 mil (+17%)
10th $150,000
11 - 12 $130,000
13 - 14 $115,000
15 - 16 $100,000 - 840k (+10%)


So... anyone that doesn't come in first makes more than last year and 1st makes less but still gets more than anyone else.. LOL @ this being a bad thing. Also, these tournaments are high variance, there is 0 reason why 1st deserves 3.3 million and 2nd gets 1.8 million (essentially playing HU for 1.5 million).

yeah, this isn't a bad thing. To the person that wins 2.2 mil and complains it's not 3.2, you won 2.2 mil. cry more, i'm sure someone might care.

1. it's the typical Pokerstars MTT structure (like Sunday Million).
they use this flat structure now for all EPT events of the season.

2. Last year the final three chopped the price money anyway because of the 1.9 million gap.

http://www.pokerlistings.com/pca-pay...lattened-95861

excerpt:

"That meant a $1.9 million gap between first and third place money and inevitably, a chop was agreed upon when play went three-handed."

I have been working on this idea for a couple of month now and think I have come up with a neat formula to achieve this goal. It uses a logametric scale based on the field size. What I am seeing now, is that most tournaments pay way too much to 1st place when field sizes exceed 1000 players.

The PCA event for 2010 actually paid a reasonable amount to 1st based on the 1529 players. However, it was a bit inconsistent on the rest with places 2-5 paying too much, 6-24 too little, and 25-176 too much.

Here is a consistent alternative assuming you want to pay 1st 2.2 mil and the min. cashers 15k, and pay 224 players:

PCA 2010 Actual Alternative Difference
1 $2,200,000 $2,200,000 $0
2 $1,750,000 $1,624,563 -$125,437
3 $1,350,000 $1,209,036 -$140,964
4 $1,000,000 $906,895 -$93,105
5 $700,000 $685,673 -$14,327
6 $450,000 $522,572 $72,572
7 $300,000 $401,489 $101,489
8 $201,300 $310,976 $109,676
9-10 $150,000 $242,849 $92,849
11-12 $130,000 $191,218 $61,218
13-14 $115,000 $151,822 $36,822
15-16 $100,000 $121,559 $21,559
17-20 $87,500 $98,155 $10,655
21-24 $75,000 $79,937 $4,937
25-32 $66,000 $65,665 -$335
33-40 $59,000 $54,408 -$4,592
41-48 $52,000 $45,479 -$6,521
49-56 $45,000 $38,352 -$6,648
57-64 $38,000 $32,632 -$5,368
65-72 $33,000 $28,019 -$4,981
73-80 $28,000 $24,273 -$3,727
81-112 $23,500 $21,223 -$2,277
113-144 $20,000 $18,728 -$1,272
145-176 $17,500 $16,682 -$818
177-224 $15,000 $15,000 $0
% to 1st 14.83% 14.83%
% Final 9 54.62% 54.64%
% Paid 14.65% 14.65%
Entries Paid More: 19
1529 Paid Fewer: 203

Also, as an example. If the PCA 2010 payout structure were applied to a sunday million with 8027 player, but with min. cash = 2x (or $400) the buyin, it would look like this:
Sunday Million 8027 players
Actual Alternative Difference
1 $240,814 $154,670 -$86,144
2 $176,594 $116,185 -$60,409
3 $120,405 $87,839 -$32,566
4 $80,912 $66,839 -$14,073
5 $64,216 $51,192 -$13,024
6 $48,162 $39,466 -$8,696
7 $32,108 $30,627 -$1,481
8 $18,462 $23,926 $5,464
9 $12,442 $18,816 $6,375
10-12 $8,589 $14,898 $6,309
13-15 $6,422 $11,876 $5,454
16-18 $4,254 $9,531 $5,277
19-27 $3,532 $7,703 $4,171
28-36 $3,211 $6,268 $3,057
37-45 $2,970 $5,136 $2,166
46-54 $2,729 $4,238 $1,509
55-63 $2,488 $3,522 $1,034
64-72 $2,248 $2,948 $700
73-81 $2,007 $2,485 $478
82-90 $1,766 $2,110 $344
91-99 $1,525 $1,805 $279
100-108 $1,381 $1,555 $174
109-117 $1,284 $1,555 $270
118-126 $1,204 $1,349 $145
127-135 $1,124 $1,349 $226
136-144 $1,044 $1,180 $136
145-153 $963 $1,180 $217
154-162 $899 $1,039 $140
163-171 $867 $1,039 $173
172-180 $835 $923 $88
181-198 $803 $923 $120
199-216 $771 $825 $55
217-234 $738 $825 $87
235-253 $706 $744 $37
253-270 $690 $744 $53
271-288 $674 $676 $1
289-306 $658 $676 $17
307-324 $642 $618 -$24
325-342 $626 $618 -$8
343-360 $610 $571 -$40
361-378 $594 $571 -$23
379-396 $578 $531 -$47
397-414 $562 $531 -$31
415-432 $546 $497 -$49
433-450 $530 $497 -$33
451-495 $514 $470 -$44
496-540 $498 $470 -$28
541-585 $482 $448 -$34
586-630 $466 $448 -$18
631-675 $450 $430 -$20
676-720 $433 $430 -$4
721-765 $417 $416 -$1
766-810 $401 $416 $15
811-855 $385 $406 $21
856-900 $369 $406 $37
901-990 $353 $400 $47
991-1080 $337 $400 $63
1081-1170 $321 $400 $79

Personally, I think this alternative is MUCH better than the current payout structure which is way too top heavy with 240k for 1st. Why do you think there is a deal almost every week. (hint: it is not because it is too flat!!!)

Im gonna be runner the up anyway so I dont care

More players = more satellites = more money for PS
simples

this

No. Adapting to different payout structures is very difficult and important part of the game. All the chip equity implications at various stages of the tourney are different with different structures. Making them the same would make playing field even more level (reduce edge of the best players).

I think this is great argument. Making payout structure such that chops won't be necessary is very good. I think reasons are obvious. Proposed structure is for sure step in this direction.