Do you think the poker prize distribution is fair?

[luckyfish98]

In poker, in almost all games, it is customary to reward only 10% of the number of players - this means that only a few receive big prizes, but what if we demand additional games in which, for example, 20%, 30%, 40% and even 50% of players are rewarded

 

[Rob Hobson]

Mostly.

 

[hardongear]

Yes it's fair cause it's the same for everyone.

Is it good, right and do I agree with the payouts of most sites? NO. I personally think it'd be a lot better if last place paid double the buy-in. Even if that means less places get paid out or the guys at the top take a bit less to make it happen. I've run many home game MTT's with my buddy the last 20 years and every single player love last place paid getting double the buy-in back. Ex. $10 buy-in. Last place pays $20.

I think bounty, knockout and PKO MTT's should/would have to have a bit different pay structure. Last place would get less then double because of needing to take money out for the bounty pool(to pay bounties). If you make the money most times you at least collect one bounty. Not always but most times.

Cheers!!!

 

[dannystanks]

It makes it that more sweet when you win!

 

[luckyfish98]

It makes it that more sweet when you win!

but you know what I would like the most - that we would be given more choice and opportunities

 

[john_entony]

In poker, in almost all games, it is customary to reward only 10% of the number of players - this means that only a few receive big prizes, but what if we demand additional games in which, for example, 20%, 30%, 40% and even 50% of players are rewarded

No, I'm against this innovation. The fact is that the more prize places, the less money is awarded between players at the final table. And the thing is that in poker should win money only those who play well, not random fishes.

 

[pirateglenn]

I am of the honest opinion that it should remain as it is - we want players striving to win tournaments and top ending the prize money makes it - the achievement it is when you final table a tournament. I want to see those top 9 get the rewards the deserve without diluting the prize pool, ive also been on the rough side of this before several times when i have bubbled but it only made me want it more.

 

[La reytor]

The advantages and disadvantages of changing the prize structure in poker to reward more players:

Advantages:

More players will feel motivated: Increase participation and interest.
Less fear of taking risks: Players become more aggressive, creating more exciting games.
More balanced play: The focus shifts from winning the jackpot to having a good overall performance.
Disadvantages:

Smaller prizes: To reward more people, the individual prizes will be smaller.
Possible frustration: Players who always finish in the middle of the table could become frustrated.
Changes to tournament structure: Adjusting prizes may require changes to the tournament format, which could make it more complex.
In short, changing the prize structure in poker to reward more players could be a good idea to increase participation and interest, but it could also have some drawbacks.

 

[kishamania]

Of course, this is true, the distribution is according to the established table and everything is fine, except for the bubble boy

 

[Cooking]

For me 20% is the ideal number because it's not that difficult to reach prize money and still gives good amount of money for the winners.

 

[Chebchoub]

The prize will be unattractive and the competition will be negatively affected

 

[tihomir_kula]

I think 20% is fair, but first 5 should be higher.

 

[infonazar]

In poker, in almost all games, it is customary to reward only 10% of the number of players - this means that only a few receive big prizes, but what if we demand additional games in which, for example, 20%, 30%, 40% and even 50% of players are rewarded

Well, 50% of the players, that's too much. I think the optimal number of prize places is 20-30%. 10% is a bit too low. But to be honest, if you search, there are different tournaments on different sites and there are those with at least 20% of the prize money, so I mean, it's quite possible to find such tournaments and it's not uncommon.

 

[pentazepam]

That is one of the reasons I play cash. There is no lottery at the end of the play, and when you win a pot, the money is always guaranteed.

 

[63burner]

Only a few get better prizes It is fair, because you know the set-up going into the tournament. It makes the tourney move a lot faster if you are in it to place inthe higher rungs, not just barely ITM I have an open mind, if there are other mTT payout systems, I'd try them out.

 

[Pokerpoet2]

I have played in some games where only the top 5 get a Prize from a starting field of well over 1,000 players. Why so few? well the answer was simple They were paying out Tickets to a much bigger Tournament, 5 X £20 tickets so the £100 freeroll as advertised was a monster Tournament all playing for the top 5 spots.
The only way they could alter this would be Paying out 1 Twentieth of a Ticket to the top 100 players, then of course you would have to win 19 other games to achieve your goal, Which would put most players off.
So to answer your Question, I think the Pay-outs in most games are fair, and competitive with other sites, If they paid out to more players the pay-outs would get smaller, and then of course they would not be worth playing for. and for all the freerolls they are putting out, there has to be a balance between how much money they can afford to give away, and how much profit they are raking in from other games, Maybe this is the reason pokerstars have cut out playing so many Freeroll Tournaments.

 

[EarnDAStack]

I think for the most part the sites pay closer to 15-20% of players and then less if it's a PKO. I generally assume it's going to be 17.5% of field paid so I'm never too far off with my assumption.

I don't necessarily agree that there is anything wrong or that I have a problem with the current pay out structures on most sites, however I do sympathize with the feeling of wanting to win money a higher percentage of the time you enter a tournament. Everyone like's money right and finishing a few spots off the bubble or bubbling is one of the worst feelings in the game of poker.


I'm not sure if you can play on it from austria luckyfish98 but the bodog/ignition/Bovada client had a few special MTTs with a very high % of the field payed out. So some sites have a few of these games with the altered payout structures I just don't think it's very common.

Usually if you win a tournament you want a BIG BIG score, I don't want to beat 199 other players in a tournament to only win 5% of the prize pool



GL


EDS

 

[emsea9o5]

In poker, in almost all games, it is customary to reward only 10% of the number of players - this means that only a few receive big prizes, but what if we demand additional games in which, for example, 20%, 30%, 40% and even 50% of players are rewarded

Seems fair to me..