Temps predicted to be 114 early next week.

I think you might be right about the scheduling but I think a bigger factor is the increase in the number of low buyin events they now offer. A large number of rec players are being spread thinner around in the various events and online events.

It's tough for WSOP because I think they're trying to appeal to more recs to go out there and play but it is coming at the cost of diminishing the prestige of the WSOP and the meaning of winning a bracelet. I think they need to reign it in a bit and consider invitational types of events and/or events requiring a certain amount of career winnings to play in. Make it more prestigious again while offering lower buyins for just a couple events.

I've often said they should offer different types of bracelets for the events, as well. Maybe silver ones for $1500 and less events, gold for $2500-5000, and platinum for $10,000+. Make it more like the olympics in that winning any medal is great but there is a tier of perceived meaning and value still in place.

neither. just creases.

the cards are overly papery, so just from normal casual bending by players checking their own hands, they often inadvertently creased the cards.

some tables were changing out cards about once every 30 minutes. Other tables were just playing with like 6 bent cards in the deck, because you couldn't really tell, and it was such a random assortment of bent cards that the informational value of spotting a creased card was less than the value lost by waiting for a floor to come over and replace the deck.

Ah. I thought the implication of the post was an intentional marking of cards.

If I exclusively played NLHE events and I could play one $1500 per year, this would be the one. There's a solid structure, no re-entry and no gimmick guarantees to distort the prizepool. It gets a huge turnout and is a very rec-heavy field because it falls on a weekend and is no re-entry.

I played it for the first time last year and plan to play again this year.

Did you win last year?

I cashed but did not win it outright

Did the bubble burst first day?

I agree with most of what you said here (though the MS is less rec-friendly this year than it has been in the past). However, what exactly is a "gimmick" guarantee and how does it "distort" the prizepool? The WSOP doesn't need guarantees because they draw huge fields without them. However, guarantees consistently make for much larger fields elsewhere. I, for one, prefer a large prizepool when I'm playing tournaments.

Last year the money wasn't reached in the MS till late on day 2.

I was referring to something like the millionaire maker or collossus where they guarantee a bunch of money up top that screws with the prizepool. I know many people like a big first place guarantee but I don't. The monster stack still hits >$1m for first without needing to guarantee it.

I remember a lot of people were mad at the WSOP for not giving a million to first place in Colossus during the first year. Some were talking about not wanting to ever play in it again for that reason alone. I think they felt pressured into doing it. For rec players, the allure of a potential seven figure payday is a strong motivating factor regardless of how that bigger payout effects the other payouts.

Incorrect, money was reached at approx. 4pm on day 2.

It's fine, give the people what they want. The nice thing about Vegas in June is there's something for everyone. The monster stack is for me.

Agree. They even screwed up the Main Event.

They did it to themselves with the stupid 15% payout. They probably could have had near a million up top with a normal pay schedule if they did 10%.

No they did not pay 15% in the 2015 colossus

This is a common error made in tournament payouts. The amount paid to 1st should be the same whether 15% or 10% of the field is paid. When going from 15% to 10% what should change is the amount of the min cash. Usually a move from 1.5x to 2.0x the buyin would be proper. But 1st should still pay the same regardless. The fact that 1st often drops when going from 10% to 15% payouts is a sign that 1st was too top heavy to begin with in the 10% payout structure. In general, most tournament today still pay about 20% too much to 1st place for field sizes over 300 players.

The 1st year colossus paid $638k to 1st with over 22,000 players. But many players that won 3k to 8k got over 1k more than they would have had 1st been pushed up to $1 million. Poker is better served by over 360 players getting an extra 1k+ than one person who is already getting 638k receiving 360k more. That being said, $638k was lower than many player's expectations. But $1 mil is an overreach as well. A more balanced figure would be around $750,000 with 22,000 players.

I'm not sure I agree with the "poker is better served" part. Of course, if all tournaments had flatter payout structures, more players would have better ROIs and it would be better for the long-term health of the game. But we're not talking about all tournaments. We are talking about a small subset of "special" tournaments. Players who only play a few tourneys a year, and in particular those who do so at the summer WSOP, are looking for the biggest bang for their buck. They want to see a big number on top, even if they are extremely unlikely to reach it. It gives them something to dream about, and get excited about. A summer WSOP tourney with an $11MM prizepool only having a $638K first prize is borderline ridiculous. Even $1MM is too low.

IMO, Summer WSOP tourneys, in fact all the big-field major events throughout Vegas in the summer should be top heavy and bottom heavy when it comes to payout structure. It should be meaningful to cash. It should be meaningful to get to the final table. And it should be extremely meaningful to finish at the top. Of course, this means the middle will get squeezed. That's ok by me in these signature summer events.

More than 5 hours in on day 2. Certainly felt like a long day already.

These were all the posts I could find regarding estimates on the Marathon. Looks like tobikosan was closest. You can pick your prize up at the cage.

With 1,759 entries, it was definitely a bit more than I expected, but nothing spectacular. For those of you who played it... what were you impressions? Was it worth having to come in day three and still not be in the money? What was the field like?

If you comment, please indicate if you play a lot of WSOP tourneys, or if you made a special trip just for this one.

Overall, how are this year's entrant #s as opposed to previous year's?

The amount paid to 1st should be a percentage based entirely on the field size, not the pool size. With 22,500 players it is crazy to pay 10% of the pool to just one person. 6.7% is very reasonable. The reasonable cutoff for 10% to just one person would be set at a field size of 5,055 players.

Imagine an event with 1 million players with a $100 buy-in or $100 mil pool. Should 10% or $10 mil go to just one player? No. A reasonable amount would be 2.4% or $2.4 million.

If the WSOP offered a special top-heavy $1500 NLHE tournament which only paid out the top 5% with a relatively huge #1 prize, would it get a larger field than a regular $1500 event (assuming factors such as day of the week are the same)? What about a special flatter pay-out tournament that pays 25% of the field?

A tourney with as many rebuys as colossus shouldn't be treated the same way as one which actually got 22000 people to play it, IMO. Maybe a payout structure based on unique entries would be better.

I'm not sure about the first part. I am not opposed to paying more than 10% of the field. I just think the payout structure should be top and bottom heavy. There ought to be a big difference between finishing out of the money, and finishing in the top 10% (or whatever % is being paid out). There also ought to be a big difference between finishing in the top 1%, or final table versus finishing in the top 3% or 5%, for instance. I don't think there needs to be that big a difference between finishing in the top 10% and top 6%, though, and this is where the bulk of the money can come from to make the payout top-heavy.

As for your second point, I think last year, or maybe the year before, they had some sort of 50/50 tourney where 50% of the field got paid. Since they don't have it again, I don't think it was very popular.