Quote:
Originally Posted by 2MuchLuckWillKillU
took big 11 with old 10% rake structure vs current big 11 as an example
3606 player field , assumed we finish every FT spot 1 in 2000 which shouldn't be too hard given the field
FT equity decreases by almost $2/game
So the idea is as follows:
Winning regs basically don't (in the long run) experience variance, they will generally win what they are supposed to meaning that they will FT and ship or get into the top 5 over a big enough sample much more than recs or bad regs.
Flattening the payout only hurts winning regs who although in the short run could benefit (as they will be moneying more as well), in the long run it cuts into their FT ROI drastically.
Here is the thing I'm wondering, where does the real skill lie in regularly moneying or regularly final tabling as we know the real money comes from the early parts of tournaments when the worst players will be spewing hardest and once you get down to sub 40 bb as the regular stack, skill edges obviously diminish (although not disappear).
The other thing is that by flattening it, yes bad players get more money all around, but what happens when bad players don't get paid when they finish in the top 5 in the same way as they as well as good regs will get hurt by these payouts as well?