Quote:
Originally Posted by everydaygrind
28.75 million for final table (~45.36% of prize pool if prize pool = 63 million)
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%).
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