The enormous payout jump on the money bubble has never made sense to me. Why is the difference between like 666th and 667th bigger than any difference until around the top 50 players? These jumps should be consistently increasing throughout the payout structure. IMHO, we should pay 20% of the field, make the first payout something like $1000 (i.e. 0.1x the buyin), and increase each jump from there.

60 mil to top spot, nothing for the losers. Like good old days on ub

winner 17 million
2nd place 5 million
3rd place 4 million
4th place 3 million
5th place 2 million
6th place 1 million
7th place 1 million
8th place 1 million
9th place 1 million
10th place 780k plus jack links jack time jacked beef jerky for a year

after that divide it up evenly like normal.

I like the guys ITT who say that we need more recreational players getting life-changing money, so they can lose it back at high stakes cash. As if Jamie Gold was a better winner for the game than Chris Moneymaker.

The reason we need them to get life-changing money is as an advertisement for the game in general.

I like flat numbers because it creates good advertising angles. It sounds proper and would look good on paper.

My payout structure:
1st $30,000,000
2nd-1,500 - $20,000

or

1st-60th - $1,000,000

^this for sure, would be a huge influx of new money into games. I know if I cashed for a million bucks I'd be one of those sheep happily

The problem with that is that you're assuming that the average recreational player who may or may not play the main event is paying a lot of attention to the payout structure. A big guarantee of some sort is much easier to market and probably does a lot more to get the attention of someone like that before they buy in.

As a player, I like a pretty standard payout structure with all other things being equal. That being said, if I was in charge of running the tournament, I wouldn't really care that much what the pros preferred. It's a very soft tournament, so worrying about what the pros want is like being a republican presidential candidate campaigning in Kansas. Just fly over and worry about someone else. They're showing up for you anyway.

woat

This is the best I could come up with. Final 9 tables = $100,000+, final table = $1,000,000+

None of you suggested paying 1000 spots, which seems to be the latest press release.

This was one of the questions on the poll. 4wiw i approve of the changes

Sent from my SM-G900V using 2+2 Forums

i know, this was said prolly like 100 times itt, but if i would be td for (only) one day, i would try to fill MY pockets and try to get a plane to a foreign country

15% payout.
Stretch out the bottom prizes so that the lowest mincashes are 10k.

i would distribute it all in my pockets and make a run for it.

Make it a spin n go, 1st place wins, no deals

They decided to go with 15% payout. 1,000 places officially guaranteed, as long as the field is 5000. Bubble should burst during day 3 now.
I feel a little more comfortable burning 10k on a donkament.

http://www.wsop.com/news/2015/Jan/51...ut-Change.html

gotta applaud the amt of thought that went into this post. what they should do to attract more people would be to hold out 1 million and after the turney completes hold a bonus drawing and the number pulled would win 1mill. so if 1256 was pulled whoever finished in that spot would get a mill,

I have done a lot of work on tournament payouts. There are certain rules that should be followed. The basic parameters need to be set first:
1) the percentage paid to 1st (best done using a log formula based on field size)
2) the percentage of the field to be paid
3) the amount of a min cash
4) the pay jump break points (ie. 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-27, etc)
5) the ratio between pay jumps should decrease at every level from top to bottom. (this is often overlooked. But WSOP does this correctly with one debatable exception: 1st to 2nd jump is pegged at 1.618-1 causing an unnatural large gap from 1st to 2nd vs other pay jumps)

The WSOP is inconsistent in 3 of these areas. For example, an 8 handed event with 1,000 players and a 9 handed event with 1,000 players will pay a different % to 1st in each, will pay a different number of places in each, and pay a different min cash amount in each. Also, a 9 handed event with 150 players will pay a different percentage of the field than a 9 handed event with 1500 players. (Generally vary from 9.5% to 13% of the field is paid)

Years ago I looked into paying 12.5% of the field, with 20k min cash and one million or more to top 9. Below shows how that would have looked for year 2010 won by Duhamel with 7319 entries. Using a natural paytable, 9th would not pay 1 million. It would pay less. Thus the ratios from 7-8 and 9-10 do not decline as they should. Also, 9-10 ratio is higher than from 1-2. But this is forced due to the request that 9th pay at least one million. I also rounded the first 12 payout spots to even numbers.

I will post followups to show what paying 1,000 places would look like. Many will feel 5.2 million for 1st is too little, but I will also follow up with why there are lots of reasons this is a perfectly fine 1st place payout. Note only 6 places pay less and 909 pay more!




RedOak

Hi folks –

Important disclaimer: this is my personal opinion. I’m not speaking for PokerStars. We have a bunch of folks who spend a lot of time crafting tournament payouts (both online and live). They’re experts at this, I’m not.

However, one of my colleagues (Baard Dahl) invented an awesome piece of software that allows the tournaments guys to craft payout tables based on various parameters (and no, it wouldn’t be of any use to you). So I got him to show me how to use it and created my perfect WSOP Main Event payout table based on 6,000 runners paying $10k each. Here are the parameters I plugged in:

1. First prize is about 12% of the prize pool. This turns out to be right on $7 million. You know what, that’s enough. $7 million is a life-changing sum of money for 99.999% of the population. So unless Dan Shak or Bill Perkins wins the main event, somebody just had his/her life move onto a different plane. And the difference in media attention between $10 million and $7 million is (IMHO) negligible.
2. I set the ratio between 1st and 9th to 11:1. I’ve always hated hockey-stick payout curves – they motivate deal-making and create all kinds of weird non-linear effects causing people to try to climb the payout ladder. The smaller that effect, the more people settle in and play their best +EV poker.
3. I paid 16.7% of the field. I’ll make the argument in detail in the next bullet, but the bottom line is: maximize the opportunity for success (defined as “cashing”). This is basically the guiding principle of my whole approach to the exercise.
4. I saved the biggest one for last: I set the min-cash multiplier to 1.5 (with some tolerance). I don’t know if the WSOP publishes the numbers, but I’ve got a bet with a colleague that the percentage of people who satellite into the WSOP main event is over 40%. So if you paid $500 to get into the WSOP main, then $15k is a 30x ROI. But even – even if you stumped up $10k cash, then you’re getting a 50% ROI, and that’s basically $5k in your pocket. Your Vegas trip is paid for (unless you have exceptionally fine taste).
   
   But more importantly, we’re maximizing the opportunity for success. 90-95% of the people who cash in the WSOP are going to be thrilled with that cash, even if it is a min-cash. Not only do they show a profit that is serious money IRL (“See that 52-inch TV on the wall of my man cave? Yeah, I paid for it with poker winnings. I never told you that story? Well…”) but they are the hero of their home game in Little Rock for the next six months. And then when the WSOP rolls around the next year, every single guy or gal in that home game will be thinking about the guy who has the 52” TV in his man cave/poker room and how they’d love to have a 52” TV and the story of a lifetime.
5. I didn’t count for tournament fees and/or other extractions from the prize pool. This is just an arbitrary field size and buy-in. Trying to subtract fees and stuff would just confuse the experiment. The important details are embedded in the results.

So that’s it. After that, I pretty much let Baard’s magic software tool do the work (“Where does he get all these toys?”).

You’ll note that I ended up paying 999 players (easier than 1k if you’re 9-handed). This was actually a happy side-effect of the solution – it wasn’t an input parameter to the program.

Please remember – this is my personal opinion. It may or may not reflect the opinions of one or more of my colleagues on the tournaments team. All of whom are awesome.

Regards, Lee
===========================

Lee, the last 7 years (besides 2014), first place received around 13% of the prize pool. You are suggesting a payout where first gets a tiny bit over 11% (given prize pool = $63 million). A first place prize where prize pool = 63 million and first = 13% would equal a pay out of $8,190,000 for first.

I think a payout where first gets less than 8 million (13% of prize pool) is a terrible start.

I would also decrease min-cash (I would with players as well, but.. I guess wsop is deadset on 1k paying out) to 12.5k.

Haven't done math yet, but something like..

1k to 751: 12.5k
750 to 601: 17.5k
600 to 501: 22.5k
500 to 401: 30k
400 to 301: 45k
300 to 201: 70k
200 to 151: 90k
150 to 101: 115k
100 to 71: 140k
70 to 51: 175k
50 to 31: 200k
30 to 21: 250k
20 to 16: 325k
15 to 13: 425k
12 to 10: 550k
9th: 1 million
8th: 1.25
7th: 1.5
6th: 2
5th: 2.5
4th: 3
3: 4 million
2: 5.5 million
1: 8 million


Total 51.5 million (10 to 1k) + 28.75 (FT) = 80.25 million prize pool (18 million more than 2014)

So obviously my numbers need a working on..

Update #1, new numbers, managed to shave off ~6 million (11 more million to go)

1k to 751: 12.5k 3.125
750 to 501: 17.5k 4.375
500 to 351: 25k 3.75
350 to 251: 40k 4
250 to 176: 65k 4.875
175 to 126: 85k 4.25
125 to 101: 110k 2.75
100 to 71: 135k 4.05m
70 to 51: 165k 3.3
50 to 31: 200k 4
30 to 21: 250k 2.5
20 to 16: 300k 1.5
15 to 13: 400k 1.2
12 to 10: 550k 1.65
= 45.325 (needs to be 34)




28.75 million for final table (~45.36% of prize pool if prize pool = 63 million)

9th: 1 million
8th: 1.25
7th: 1.5
6th: 2
5th: 2.5
4th: 3
3: 4 million
2: 5.5 million
1: 8 million
Total 45.325+ 28.75 = 74.075



Edit, managed to shave off another 6 million.


1k to 651: 13.5k 4.725
650 to 501: 17.5k 2.625
500 to 351: 22k 3.45
350 to 251: 30k 3
250 to 176: 40k 3
175 to 101: 55k 4.25
100 to 81: 75k 2.75
80 to 61: 100k 2
60 to 51: 125k 3.3
50 to 41: 160k 4
30 to 21: 200k 2
20 to 16: 300k 1.5
15 to 13: 400k 1.2
12 to 10: 550k 1.65
= 39.45 (needs to be 34) + 28.75 (FT payout) = 68.2 million prize-pool (~5.2 million greater than 2014 prize pool).

Edit #2, I could shave off 0.5 million off 2nd and 0.25 million for 3rd to "save" 0.75 million total = 67.5 million prize-pool (2nd 5 million, 3rd 3.75)

Ironically, if we just cut off places 1000 to 650, you reduce it by 4.725 million which is pretty much the goal. :-/


I think last years was a gigantic cluster**** of an idea making the payout 10 million. I'm sure Mr Jacobson is thankful for it, but now it's a bit implanted that every year after should be first for 10 million. Even when Jaime gold won it, it wasn't for more of a % prize pool than Jacobson. (Gold = 14.545%. Jacobsen at 15.895%).

Update #3

Rest of field:

1k to 651: 13.5k 4.725
650 to 501: 17.5k 2.625 7
500 to 351: 22k 3.45
350 to 251: 30k 3
250 to 176: 40k 3
175 to 101: 55k 4.25
100 to 81: 75k 2.75
80 to 61: 100k 2
60 to 51: 125k 3.3
50 to 41: 160k 4
30 to 21: 200k 2
20 to 16: 300k 1.5
15 to 13: 400k 1.2
12 to 10: 550k 1.65
= 39.45 (needs to be 34) (now ~35.75 million with new/updates FT payout numbers)

New FT payout:

9th: 1 million
8th: 1.25
7th: 1.5
6th: 1.75
5th: 2.25
4th: 2.75
3: 3.75 million
2: 5 million
1: 8 million

Saves 1.5 million

Total = 66.7 million,

~3.75 million to go

In 2012 there were 6598 entries and in 2014 there were 6683. Since they are close, I will use 2012 numbers since the $10 Million to 1st last year messed things up.

Two years ago I looked at paying 15% of the 2012 field and having min cash be $20,000. The bottom chart below shows that result. The red cells pay less in my payouts and the green pay more. Note 99 places pay less in my paytable and 891 pay more. Note the ratios decline as they should in my payout for each pay jump. The WSOP actual has two out of place denoted in red cells in the left column. (and note the out of line ratio from 1st-2nd compared to all others though this was done by design- but why?) My chart does not pay 1 million or more to the top 9. Rather it shows what a purely correct payout should look like with 1) the amount to 1st based on field size 2) the min pay being 2x the buyin, and 3) paying 15% of the field. I will post what paying 1 million+ to top 9 and 15k min pay in future posts could look like.

The idea that $8 million "should" go to 1st is a carryover from the extreme top heavy payouts from decades ago. To think 13% of a 6600 player field should go to one person is crazy. Also, over 40% of the pool to the final table is crazy too. In 2012 the WSOP paid 43.93% to the final table. My payout drops this to 32.04%. Think about it, with 6600 players spread over 3 day ones, you walk into the Rio on day 1A and you see every table filled in all 3 big rooms - 244 tables in all, 2200 players, and then realize that all of that money will go to only 4 players! That is way too top heavy!

Paying 1st $8 million is already more than the winner of the US Open Golf ($1.62 million), the US Open Tennis ($1.9 million), the Indy 500 ($2.49 million) and the Kentucky Derby ($1.44 million) combined! You don't need $8 million, or $10 million to generate excitement. $5 million is plenty! And consider 39% of all that extra money will go to taxes anyway but if put on the bottom the tax rate falls to 10%. (more on taxes in later posts, but for now with a flatter payout, over $2300 per cashing player can be saved in lower taxes alone)


re:everydaygrind. I post your solution in progress below. You skipped payouts 31-40. You also have out of line ratio jumps all over the place as shown in red. They should decline at all levels. You need to use the solver function in excel to do this and it really cannot be done by just trial and error.

Also you mention that cutting out the pays from 650-1000 will save 4.75 million that you are looking for. Well so too will cutting 1st to 5 mil, 2nd to 4 mil and 3rd to 3 mil. That would be much better with only 3 people get a pay cut vs. 350 people getting a pay cut. Top pros like top heavy payouts because they all take pieces of each other and are more likely to get there. Yet they now likely only make up less than 25% of the fields. The vast majority have spoken and they want more places paid and less at the top. There is still lots of room to take more off the top.

everydaygrind numbers in progress...



2012 Alternative payout, 15% of field paid, 20k min cash.

RedOak

$50m for 1st

$1 for everybody else

the rest goes mysteriously missing in to my swiss bank account