Quote:
Originally Posted by RealMcCoy
Boring final table ? For who ? The TV audience, the Pod cast viewers, the players ? Pig as a highly experienced player you know that a flatter final table payout just makes someone appreciate the risk reward and re-evaluate the EV of closer decisions. It absolutely should reduce the occurrence of major Flip decisions so if you like seeing people shove big stacks in with JJ vrs AK well I guess it should make it a bit more "boring". Flattening payouts IMO inevitably increases runners as the additional 5% that sneak into the money have just "won" their next buy in. As a dedicated Rec player I can tell you that no matter how much money I have in the bank its always psychologically easier to use the $+2000 I just "won" to buy into the next $1500 event than to pull it out of my wallet fresh. The reality is the $1500 doesn't honestly mean squat to me on an overall financial basis but mentally it sure as hell does .
I’m not discussing the final table payouts, but the big 50 in 2019 paid out 1524 players less than $1000.
First place paid $1.147 million. If we distribute that $150,000 among the 1524, it only costs ~$98 ($150,000/1524) Per each player. If we trim that from the top 2000 spots, it only costs ~$75 per player ($150,000/2000)
There were literal payjumps in that event for $1 to $3. Paying out 15% of the field and the large first prize due to special event where the first entry didn’t even get raked obviously is a factor. But you could legit just pay out $1000 to significantly more people.
You can still keep the large payjumps for the top finishing players
Smaller initial payouts also encourage more gambling after the money bubble bursts which is good for the WSOP since the event has even faster eliminations.
Last edited by davepoker; 05-28-2021 at 03:14 PM.
Reason: More detail