Models only work when your assumptions are realistic.

Make the bubble player get twice his buyin back. So people don't slowplay.

Ridiculous comment, as this just moves the bubble back one spot.

Love this payout a lot.

I don't know how it works (of course depends on the country you live) but putting a too top heavy structure is idiotic to me.
Maybe im totally wrong but isn't it better to make a flatter payout since i guess you get less owned by taxes (in termes of percentage) on smaller cashes than if you make a FT with really big cashes (high percentage of the prizepool going for the FT and really deep finishes) in which players might get taxed a lot.
If you give less to the first places you can give more to small cashes (like 200 to 1000th finishers) and some of these might dodge taxes somehow (i don't know how that happens but maybe you don't pay for instance taxes on a 15k cash for a 10k BI entrance so +5k net winnings).


When we saw the percentages the FT players kept the past couple years you have to find something (it's the job of the Rio and organizers to make sure there is some interest to play) to avoid taxes getting too much of it.
If it's by using a flatter payout that's fine.
Giving 13% of the prize for an almost 7k tournaments in a game of luck is stupid to me, it's too much (and i know Moneymaker took 2.5M for a 1k players ME but lots of events happened in the world - and in the poker world - that you can't possibly do top heavy things).

WTA

Give it to the bubble

Here is a look at the 2016 main event. It paid $8 mil to 1st. Without the top 9 getting $1 mil+, it would have paid the yellow payout or $7.634 mil to 1st. To pay for the top 9 mil guarantee, the WSOP took money from all places and even ADDED more to 1st as well to make it an even $8. They added more to 10th as well to help make the gap between 10th and 9th be smaller. But keep in mind, at 650k, 10th pays more than the natural pay amount of 548k. So I have no sympathy that 10th needs to pay even more than 650k. The gap between 1st and 2nd is even worse.

Do you think Col L -24- with $7.36 mil to 1st is better than the actual pay of $8 mil? Col L has places 1 thru 6 all pay an equal share to the guarantees for places 7th-11th whereas the actual pay charges everyone and even juices up 1st place.

Do you think the other choices are better yet? The other choices 32, 28, 27 and 25.5 cut the gap between 1st and 2nd. The first 3 also pay over 855 places more money. I actually think 27 is the best followed closely by 28 and think 25.5 is a reasonable compromise between those and the actual top heavy $8 mil amount. I think $8 mil for 1st is too much. $5-$6 mil is plenty. The winner will still never have to work again, and they get the priceless bracelet and a lifetime of glory while giving the middle place finishers a nice pay bump. Thoughts?

Here are the "average bubble factors" (second column) for the actual payouts:

1 left: Winner 8000000
2 left: 1.0000 4658340
3 left: 1.2654 3451175
4 left: 1.4389 2574808
5 left: 1.5401 1934579
6 left: 1.5936 1463906
7 left: 1.5538 1250000
8 left: 1.5210 1100000
9 left: 1.4875 1000000

Here they are for the yellow column
1 left: Winner 7634181
2 left: 1.0000 4718282
3 left: 1.2910 3521228
4 left: 1.4732 2645440
5 left: 1.5766 2000852
6 left: 1.6298 1523578
7 left: 1.6517 1168065
8 left: 1.6542 901659
9 left: 1.6446 700828

For comparison, the direct bubble of a 6-max SNG is 1.539, and for a 9-max SNG is 1.875, so your idea is going to play a lot more nitty for the televised final table.

But they want to be able to say "everyone here is a millionaire", so that's part of the motivation I think. if the final table has too much then cut back 2nd, and third, not the headline amounts for 1st and 9th.

IMHO something like the below would be best
1 left: Winner 10000000
2 left: 1.0000 1500000
3 left: 1.0116 1400000
4 left: 1.0305 1300000
5 left: 1.0562 1200000
6 left: 1.0663 1150000
7 left: 1.0815 1100000
8 left: 1.1008 1050000
9 left: 1.1234 1000000

Everyone gets $1m, we have a headline-grabbing $10m dollar first prize, $8m is saved from the final table for better prizes lower down the scale, but most importantly of all, we have proper balls-out poker on TV playing for chips and the title instead of nittery. If you don't want to distribute the $8m round the rest of the field, add it to postions 2-8 and then you're guaranteeing $2m per player - just don't use it to nit up the play at the final table.

First player to bust lose

All remaining get 10.001

I don't understand why you equate giving the players some play time as a bad thing. What you call a nittery is actually giving the players some time to get a balanced run of cards so skill can rise to the top instead of having it become a crapshoot and turn into a shovefest. As far as headlines, is $10 mil really more impressive than $5 million? At $7.5 mil, the main event already pays more than the winners of the Wimbledon Tennis, Master Golf, the Belmont Stakes, and the Indy 500 combined! Even at $5 million, the winner will never have to work again, and could make over $100k a year just putting his/her after tax winnings into a US treasury bond at 3%.

It's like watching paint dry and it's supposed to be enjoyable to see on TV. Nobody wants to watch a bunch of guys who tank every ****ing hand and checkfold top pairs to maniacs (come on in Vayo) but rather people playing poker and act like they would in their home game. Maybe add a bit of trash talking and now you have something that would actually be entertaining for people to watch and try out themselves.

Do the winners of Wimbledon, Masters golf etc pay 10k to enter those tournaments?
No.
Argument invalid

$60m prizepool:

Give place 2 - 1714 $35k each and give the winner $45k imo.

My point is that many believe you need a big WOW number at top. $10 mil was thought to be "it". But I argue $5 mil is plenty because no other sporting event in the world comes even close to $5 mil let alone $10 million. People don't watch it because 1st pays $8 mil and would be bored it if "only" paid $5 mil. They watch it because it is the the main event of the WSOP and thus the biggest poker event of the year.

So poker players at the main event final table should toss aside proven winning strategies and play like maniacs, 4 bet jamming with 74s all because it makes for good ratings? Should the players for the world chess title abandon boring book opening lines and play wild losing gambits hoping their opponent will miss an obvious refutation? I think not.

And only the HU battle to be televised

Winner Take All

I'd give it all to Chainsaw since it's the only shot he ever has at winning.

+1

During the first five days if you bust out you get a bust out drawing entry to be used that night only. Each night for the first six days they draw a winner for a million dollars. Every year you will have up to six Darvin Moon type bust outs heading back to their local catdrooms a million dollars richer. Poker advertising revitalized, grinders mad, fish rich, and chainsaw on life tilt. You're welcome Jack Effel.

Mincash = maxcash.

Ffs this. 5 mil up top, guarantee mil for ft, have heaps of cash to spread around everywhere else.

resubmitting. best idea in this thread.

#makepaigowgreatagain #rippsumike

Have the first pay-offs start at half buy-in ($5K) and layer up so that when at 15% of field, paying buy-in ($10K). When at 10% of field paying double buy-in ($20K).

The rest of the money distributed in flatter curve, not hockey stick.

60m all to the 78th place finisher