I would like to know how players would feel if the WSOP expanded payouts to 11.1% (1/9 of entries) instead of the current 10% or so range.

Since holdem games are 9 handed, I thought an average of 1 person per table cashing seemed like a logical alternative to the current 10%.

The WPT is starting to play close to 15% of the field in their main events.
The sunday majors online pay 14% or so.

The money to pay for it would mostly come from 1st place. So in the main event for 2010, 747 were paid and 72 received the 20k each for min. cashing. If 11.1% were paid, then 813 or 66 more would make the money and 1.32 mil would cover it, making first prize fall from 8.9 million to 7.5 million. Since the odds of winning are once every 7000 years, I figure taking it from first was a good choice. Plus the winner likely will get at least a million more in sponsorship, so he/she won't mind too much. Would you still play the main event if 1st was "only 6.5 to 7.5 million"?

Thoughts?

I think the idea of reducing all the payouts by the same percentage makes way more sense than just taking all the marginal payout from first.

I'd tend to agree with you. The payouts should be reduced across the board and not from the guy who just won all the chips.

I have been looking at the % paid to 1st in the WSOP events and it seems to me that as the field sizes explode into the thousands, that the % paid to first place has not been properly adjusted downward fast enough.

In the main event with 7319 players, 1st is paid 13% of the pool. If the 1.32 mil came out of 1st, it would drop the % down to about 11.1-11.2% of the pool. Still a large number if you think about it going to just one person.

The current formula is to reduce 1st place % of the pool by 1/2 of 1% for every 250 additional entries. This would mean that at around 20,000 entries,
1st place would get 0% of the pool. I think it would be better to use a logarithm based formula to determine how much 1st should receive. Using logs, I have found 10.28% to 1st in a 7319 event fits nicely.

In the 116 player event at wsop this year, 1st paid 28.0%. the log scale would have paid 28.49%.
In a 507 size field, the wsop pays 23% to first, whereas the log scale from above would pay 18.67% to 1st. In a 1225 player event, the wsop paid 22.0% to 1st, where the log scale would pay 14.97%. In a 2394 player event, the WSOP paid 18.0% vs 12.87% that a log scale would pay. And in a 4345 player event, the wsop paid 16.0% vs 11.37% for a log scale payout.

Not true

I heard that WPT was implementing Winner Take All; Less paperwork.

I only looked at most recent Bellagio VI

entries, 353, paid 50, % paid= 14.16%


but Spanish Championship had

entries, 326, paid 36, % paid = 11.04%

Paris Event:

entries, 247, paid 27, % paid= 10.93%

IMHO, I think 11.1% is a good standard. 10% is just too snug. 12.5+ is too loose. A few extra cashing 2x their buyin is a good thing. Keeps them coming back for more.

FWIW I have always paid about 10%

I was going through the archives of Poker Player Newspaper yesterday, and randomly came upon an article similar to this post in one of the issues (page 14).

For the event in question, a WSOP $1,000 NL holdem event, a field of 342 players paid out 9.

I bet the guy who came 10th wanted to kill a kitten.

I'm still surprised that the WSOP doesn't pay out 15% or 20% to get those people who cashed to turn around the next day and buy-in again.

Paying out 15% to 20% of the field would certainly generate more player buyins. However, most pros would be against that as being too generous.
Some middle grounds exists to be found.

That is why I suggested 11.1% (1/9th) of the field cashing and making at least 2x their buyin. In the large player fields, 1st will still pay a large amount, and the final 9 will still often get over 50% of the prize money.

In the main event for 2010, the top 9 of 7319 players carve up 42% of the prizepool. That is a lot of money to go to just 9 players. Numbers I have worked with would only drop that to 37% and 1st would still pay a healthy 7.3 mil instead of 8.9 mil, and an extra 66 players would cash each getting $20,000. I don't think that is asking too much.

if hey paid out 10 people, the 11th man out would have wanted to kill a kitten... this is always true no matter where you set the bubble.

I always say pay fewer than 10%...9% should become the new norm... the payout for the min-cash will go up, so will the money for the last 2-3 tables (leave the pay for 1st the same, depending on field size... most pay around 25%, WSOP ME pays less than 15%, iirc)

Pay-out scale for WSOP Circuit events:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7101782/2010...%20%282%29.xls

Jimmy, thanks for the link. Some observations I have:

1) I noticed this is different from the WSOP payscale used at the Rio.
For example, with 910 to 999 players the WSOPC pays 19% to 1st, but WSOP would have paid 21.0% (BTW, my formula would have paid an average of 18.0% to 1st in that field size range)

Will WSOP use this one in 2011? Or is the lower percentage paid to 1st place just for WSOPC events?

Are you required by gaming regulations to publish the payout percentages prior to the event? If so, would you be allowed to use a range instead.
For example, for 910-999 players could you state 1st will pay 19.21% to 18.79% instead of a flat 19%? And then ranges for the other finishing positions as well?


2) I like the fact you are willing to increase places paid by a single player as field size increases by 10 from 9 players through 89 players, then by 3 from 90 through 369 as opposed to waiting to pay only full tables of 9 places.

It seems to me that is should not take any more effort to have pay bubbles break at numbers not divisible by 9. Thus a bubble of 90 places paid should not require any more monitoring than a bubble of 91, or 92, place paid etc.

3) In the 910-999 player field size, 99 places are paid. That corresponds to 10.88% of the field at 910 to 9.91% of the field with 999. Yet the 100-129 player field pays 15 spots. This corresponds to 15% of the field with 100 players and 11.63% of the field with 129 players.

My preference would be for a consistent standard for % of field paid. Say you were to settle on 11.1%. Then you could simply state "1/9 of players shall cash rounded to nearest whole number"

4) Once the field size hits 40 or more players, I notice the ratio from 1st to
2nd is 1.618-- the "Golden Ratio". I know from reading about the changes in 2009 that this was a suggestion from Barry Greenstein.
(see http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...s-more-483470/ ) However, I feel this is just an arbitrary number and causes the pay gap from 1st to 2nd to be larger than it should be.
The other places all have much smaller gaps and are the result of curve fitting formulas that could just as well be applied to the gap between 1st and 2nd to provide for a consistent transition between different payouts.

I plan to submit my suggestions on payout changes to the WSOP players committee at year end. I will send you and Matt a copy as well. Keep up the good work.

Jimmy,
Is the payout schedule going to be consistent through ALL the Circuit events including the two in AC?

Also, will the structures be consistent throughout the Circuit events?

Thanks.



HGWT

Why isn't Chainsaw all over this thread? Changing from 11.1% to 10.0% is going to hugely impact his ROI.

I agree you shouldn't just take it off the top if you pay a larger %. Honestly they should take a little off of everyone to pay out the few extra spots. These tournaments are so top heavy anyways you really need to FT and do well period just to get paid properly. I won't care either way if they pay top 10% or 1 out of 9 honestly. I am always gunning to win these things anyhow. To date though I have never played in a WSOP Circuit ME or the WSOP ME.

I just finished my numbers for the main event and found that the top 171 places would payout less if 11.1% cashed (813) intsead of 10.2% (747).
Places 172-747 would all pay a little more (576 spots) and of course 66 more would min. cash for $20,000 on top of that.

The top 9 players currently receive 42.20% of the prizepool, and my method would only drop this to 39.67%. Still a very large amount to just 9 out of 7319players.

My payout suggestions would provide consistency across all WSOP events by standardizing:

1) the % payout to 1st place via a logametric formula

Currently WSOP has different payout percentages to 1st place based on 9 handed, 8 handed, 6 handed, heads up, and shootout events.


2) a straight 11.1% of field paid, with exception to heads up events where 1/8 of field is paid, and shootout events where an adjustment needs to be made due to their structure.

Currently WSOP tries to pay approximately 10% of the field. But often it is done to nearest whole tables of players. This results in a range of under 9% to over 13% of players being paid.

3) min. cash in all events would be EXACTLY 2x the buyin, with some rare cases in events with less than 100 players that might need to pay a bit more.

Currently WSOP payouts cover a range of field sizes. Thus min. cashes are most often just under 2x the buyin, but can be above 2x when less than 10% of field cash.

Why not pay 20% or even 25% of the field of the Main Event. Definitely reduce the first place payout and the final nine and down the line somewhat. My reasoning is, you have all the sattelite qualifiers happy to get ITM for low costs. You have poker sites and casinos sending people to the Main Event. Main Event entrys could increase to 10k, maybe 20k. As for other WSOP events, a 1k or 3k buy-in, keeping a tight payout structure probably makes more sense. If you cut the Main event first place prize, then they are still filthy rich. If you cut the other events prizes, it just doesn't look right for a bracelot winner to be short on cash.

this is one of the worst ideas ever i mean ****ing ever. paying 20 percent cuts the profitability of tourneys massively. 25 is just stupid. i mean yeah no big deal to do it for one event a year but you know other places would start doing it.

players are getting better every day and doing stuff like paying more spots just hurts any chance of profitability more. from playing alot the only meaningful finishes are final tables anyway so we really cannot afford to cut them anymore.

if you look back you can see payouts have gotten less steep over the years already.

fish don't seem to care about min cashing anymore. so paying less spots (like 9 or 10 percent is not bad and paying 1.5 to 2x the buy is not bad). but since paying the 1.5 to 2 whacks the final table payouts you really don't want to pay more spots.

and dude who started this thread why do you care so much about 9 percent or 13 percent its not a big deal. the min cash is basically irrelevant to any success as a tourney player. also, you do realize alot of events are 6 handed and 8 handed which kind of defeats your 11 percent theory anyway.

I'm was talking about the WSOP main event only. So many people are sattellited with a free buy-in, why not encourage that. The poker craze is much less than it was, yet we had plenty of players at the main event. Why was that? I'm also saying keep the other WSOP events tight.


I think it was mostly online poker sites sending hoardes who were given the buy-in to the Main Event. Why not encourage more players. Do you really think it hurts profitablilty to reduce the first place prize from 30 million to 20 million? That is possible with 20k players. Do you really think 7k players is more comfortable that 20k, or that the days of small all-pro fields will return?

once they did it with the main event they would do it with other events.
20 percent to 25 percent payouts would kill the point of playing tourneys.

as long as stars and ftp are giving people big incentives to play in the main event it will keep drawing 7k.

the only reason attendance would decline is if somehow harrah's stopped the internet sites from promoting the .net sites and than attendance would drop like a rock because stars and tilt are a huge reason for the main events success.

people are so stupid (not you - but look at how many spelling mistakes). they think that you can pay tons of spots, pay the last spots well, and not hurt the tourney at all. there is no free lunch.

since most people including casual players don't seem to care about the min cash much id say move the other direction and pay 9 percent.

A couple of years ago I went to a local live tourney on Monday night at the Golden Gates Casino. It was seven tables, loose players, paid five positions and I think first place was about 23 * buy-ins. I also went to a tourney at the same casino a couple of monthes ago, Wednesday night, nitty players and barely four tables, first place was not much. While it would mean some logisitcal manuevering, maybe day 1-e through day 1-? at other casinos, and even day 2 or 3 rounds at other casinos, I think the current owners of the WSOP have the casinos.

The trek to the November Nine ends up being a two week extavaganza with players from all over the world, going after the huge first place prize. Fewer players hurts the prize more than anything. A bigger Cashing pool helps the WSOP Main Event, it probably hurts most of the other WSOP tourneys, and just about any other tourney with small fields, to make it a 25% payout. The days of huge numbers of loose players lining up for the latest trend may be over, but, overseas and even in the USA, many players would love to go to the main event and have a good chance to cash, over and over again.

As far as spelling, they don't teach that anymore, at least like they used to in the old days, ...spellcheck u know.... And I think other tourney directors should see that they are not the Main event, and that many of their fields have dropped quite a bit I think. Why someone wouldn't be interested in a free trip to Vegas and a min-cash is beyond me. In fact, this could create a new type of player at the WSOP Main Event, the min-cash specialist! And first place could be $15,000,000.00 or more, skys the limit.

killa-you are ******ed if you think casual players don't care about mincashing the Main Event. Look at hand for hand, every year it takes like two hours to play seven hands, and when the money is made, the whole room cheers like crazy.

If you are talking some $100 daily tourney, it's less ******ed, but still wrong I would guess, given that in almost every tourney like that there is squealing about saving some money for the poor bubble boy.