We all know that the poker environment has changed drastically over the last years. A decade ago we were shipping MTTs for fun, but now players are much better on average and you need a decent amount of luck besides putting in a lot of effort to achieve a good result.

I think payout structures in general should adjust to this. Why not let, say, 25% of the field reach the money? That would greatly reduce the variance regular MTT players have to deal with. Of course the top spots would be paid very differently as a result, but that's obvious.

So what's the main concern here? That recreational players would not be as interested in playing?

What do you guys think?

actually, paying out more players would NOT decrease variance for pro players, but it would decrease their edge (making money feels less "elite" for recs = they make less mistakes on the bubble). If you want to decrease variance for professional players, you would want similar structure, but with flatter final table payouts.

However, over last few years most poker providers were focusing on making life harder, not easier for professional players, so I don't think mtt's are any different.

What? A top-heavy payout structure generally favours pro players. Paying out a larger field size is generally done to try to attract MORE recs, not the other way around.

I really think you need to define explicitly why you believe the organizers run a tournament or perhaps to what series/level you are referring. You seem to take it as a given that these events are run so that some group an earn a consistent living with the prize money. Are these de facto professional events in which amateurs are encouraged to participate? I am well aware that any activity which occurs on a regular basis that provides a potential payout may develop a regular following that benefits from that payout. However that does not mean that they should expect that that those payout structures should be tailored to their wants and needs.

I play 3-4 table MTTs. If you want more consistent winnings but with fewer peaks then so should you.

Unless you want a wild top heavy payout structure there is no need for them to put a load of tables in the same building and have everyone drive or fly long distances, you can just play with a few dozen people from your home town in the evening.

Id prefer that only the final table gets paid and forget these min cash deals. They stall the game too much and when i have my RUNGOOD, I wants to be paid nicely and not have 150 other people taking up the prize pool. I dont play to min cash and cant stand when people play the clock game when getting near the bubble

and keep in mind, im a fishy player that has a rungood, it seems every 6 months, but when i do have this rungood, i hate seeing so many people taking a piece of the pie

The wsop main this year is a step in the wrong direction.

This is just not true

Unless illegal, there is no good reason for it short of laziness and/or incompetency. That is why all of the best rooms *do* take call ins. There is no debate or argument to be had here. These are only facts.

You take call ins, you mark them as such on a board, you mark them as here when they show. Very simple and saves a player a lot of wasted time sitting around.

Do people really play the main event as a credible source of income?, it's a 5k+ field & once per year. Even with a big edge & playing this event over 50 years the sample size is so minute that you will never see the long term n thus i don't really see how you can credible claim it's a good source of income or whatever for a pro.

I always thought people played the main event n such to get tv exposure & for the experience of being in vegas in the biggest poker event of the year. To me(as a recreational tourny player, if that) i wouldn't mind seeing less min cashes & even more top heavy payouts if it attracts more recreationals to the game.

I mean crap, if they did a winner takes all event & it had a first place prize of 100mill or whatever just imagine the press it would garner & the new recreationals it brings to the game overall, i think this is more benefitial to the poker community than whether it's viable for tourny pros to play who are thinking about the long term ev etc, especially since they will never see the long term ev in this tournament to begin with.

Wrong thread obv lol.

i think a committee of poker pros (the poker players alliance) needs to step in and talk about this.... or allen kesslar making at thread himself for the whole world to notice

I still think the pay is too top heavy in MTT's , especially recreational birds in casinos

I respectfully take the other side on this one. I think WSOP did a great job by increasing the number of Main Event "Winners", it will be good for the growth of the field size in future years, imho.

I think u have the right idea, just a bit extreme. I feel 15%-20% of mtt fields should make the money, 25% is a bit too much. Also a min cash should be double the buy in, minus fees (ex. the $565 collasus tourney should pay $1000 min cash). This would simply keep more people in the game, both from the excitement of cashing and winning a couple more buy ins.

Sent from my LG-LS970 using 2+2 Forums

No this is a stupid idea /thread go play SNGs if you want 25%+ of the field paid

Apples and oranges - Is the OP talking about the WSOP or talking about online MTT's in general

If talking about online mtts, only the final table should get paid

This alone should help the ECOSYSTEM by having people depsoit than to stall games to min cash and keep doing this over and over. Payout 9th-5th the same (WHICH WOULD TOTAL ALL THOSE hundreds of min cashes they payout) and start increasing it at 4th. BUt paying out 15%- 20% or 25% just spreads the money too thin for those RUN GOOD MOMENTS