Quote:
Originally Posted by Sect7G
Yes. No one is advocating for that as players realize we need a balance. The motives for flatter payouts are just as ClayDol said. The end result will be more recycled rake.
kind of doubt that WTA would allow for the highest ROIs possible since it takes away any ICM/risk aversion pressure (and therefore lots of possible mistakes villains could make allowing the best players to creat edges), but I guess its save to say that lion share first prices allow for higher possible ROIs than very flat payout structures. Take the other extreme, satelites. those have the flattest payout structure possible, and possible ROIs are pretty low.
Which payout sturctue allows for the highes ROIs exactly is a nontrivial question and depands on a lot of factors, including how poorly the playerbase adapts to the given payout structure. At least if I don't have a major twist in my thoughts
Also flatting payout structures just makes poker tournaments less enjoyable and boaring. It magnifies bubble factors towards the end of a tournament as laddering becomes more important than fighting for the win relativ to steeper payout structurs, making folding in a lot of spots a way more attractive option. Not as extrem as in sattys, but def. more than it used to be.
It's sad and in my eyes plain stupid to make your product, which has to be an exciting one to have the right to exist more boaring. Nobody would ever watch a sattelite on TV, it is just boaring. Watch out where you are hadding to...
also killing a lot of sattelites (by raking rebuys/addons in those hyperish structured turbo sattys) in the current market environment is just beyond in my eyes, you should rather massivly push those and make it "first ticket for target has to be played" which has hardly any pitfalls but a lot of quite obvious advanages... Never understood that tbh...
and yes, I assume the same reason behind these changes as most seemingly reflective and intelligent posters itt do