Anyone else dislike the payout structure on most MTTs?

[amatola]

My main issue is that solid, mid places ( often place 5 - 20 in 200/ 400 entrants) do not get enough of the reward. I find places 1-3 get too much and often the tail is too long. Really, only top 10% should get rewarded, not top 15% or 20%.

Basically would prefer to see the payout curve a bit more flatter, with top 2/3% taking more of the prize - because lets face it, skill only takes you that far, there is a fair amount of luck involved.

Anyone else agree?

 

[Alex Sentsov]

I also don't like that the prizes between 1st and 9th place on the final table are very different. But what will you do? We have to accept these rules.

 

[Risto234]

I dont dislike it as long as it is bounty MTT and i have managed to send some players to sleep ?!?

 

[fundiver199]

I might not love it that much either, but poker sites make the payout structure like that for a reason. The big price for the winner is to get people playing, and the many small min-cashes is to make them come back and play again. Pretty much the same as people buying lottery tickets hoping for the million dollar first price and continuing to play each weak, because sometimes they do at least win 5 bucks

 

[KPC16]

I like the payout structure, to be honest. Being able to get paid motivates me to get the next level of pay.

 

[LFC_yllnwa]

I never thought about it, but I like what's on pokerstars right now. I don't think it's right to cut the tail or reduce the top of the prizes,because the effort it takes to get into the top 25 in a big MTT is very large, and so the prizes should definitely be different. If the prizes are not enough for high positions, players will play very furiously and this is not correct. Prizes should be gradual and constantly increasing and the more players the bigger and longer the prize grid. I think it's the right thing to do and everything is fine now

 

[lcid86]

It keeps players coming back. If all the money went to only the top players, the player pool would continue shrinking. If you don't like min cash, play to win.

 

[MikeCarasone]

I definitely get frustrated that min cashes are often barely more that the buy in in some events. After playing 6-8 hours and making the money , breaking even is a bit disappointing. I honestly believe a min cash should be at least double the buy in. Especially when many tournaments have multiple entries. Buying in 2x and cashing for instance is often a losing session. Tournament payouts are too heavy. I understand that , but for a player that min cashes a lot it’s not very financially motivating .

 

[ph_il]

I definitely get frustrated that min cashes are often barely more that the buy in in some events. After playing 6-8 hours and making the money , breaking even is a bit disappointing. I honestly believe a min cash should be at least double the buy in. Especially when many tournaments have multiple entries. Buying in 2x and cashing for instance is often a losing session. Tournament payouts are too heavy. I understand that, but for a player that min cashes a lot it’s not very financially motivating .

or it means that players shouldn't be focusing on just min-cashing if they want to make a profit.

if you're (not you specifically) min-cashing a lot and still not making a profit, the issue might not be from the pay structure. it's from poor mtt strategy or not knowing how to play properly to make deep runs.

 

[Katie Dozier]

I’m not a fan of flat payout structures, in part because the more top heavy a structure is, the more we get to play in ChipEV versus ICM intensive situations. I also feel good about my short handed game (thanks to all of those SNGs lol ) and so I love the ability to profit dramatically in the top few spots.

I think the move in general towards flatter structures isn’t really great for poker in the long term either as it limits the hype/excitement of a given tournament. It’s particularly crazy when a min-cash is less than the buyin itself and at that point I’d decline to play in the tourney at all.

 

[Mahdi]

I don`'t know, mostly I like it, it feels right, in some other disciplines top-1 gets 50% of prize pool

 

[ProfessorGrind]

Katie said it all. great post.

 

[ChickenArise]

I really dont like it. As others mentioned you spend hours to min cash and barely make a minimum wage. I know the sites wont do what I am in favor of which is eliminating the bottom 10% of the prize pool and redistribute it all to the top 10% finishers with the min cash payments starting at 3x.

Yes, it would absolutely mean I cash less often, but when I did cash at least it would be a prize that is worth all the time put in.

Maybe Run it Once will do this when they announce tournaments. If anyone knows what the players want and is bold enough to deliver, it would be Phil Galfond.

 

[Igor Popadyk]

in the later stages of the tournament I also have a problem, but I see the solution in changing the strategy of the game - this is the key to top places, my opinion

 

[Katie Dozier]

Katie said it all. great post.

Awww thanks [emoji4]

 

[UkoChebuko]

Anyone else agree?

Agree..But this is good for the "ecosystem". High amount for the first place = good advertisement. Long "tail" = more often some fish will take some money. And he will continue to gamble = high chance to become addictive , more or less. You can see this "strategy" anywhere. A "jackpot", a lot of money. Or small amount of money, but more often. Or both...Even at the slots this days, it is just the same. Lottery, lotto, everything. I used to play slots, I was "stealing" some bonuses. And it is like the chance to hit x1000 is the same chance like x500, x 200. Or close to that. And many very small "hits". Smaller than your bet...And "bonus game" or free spins. Back in the days even the slots was different. And the lottery, everything. But the rich people becomes clever. And more rich...This started first at 888 poker, I remember. This payout structure. There was a lot of rage. From the regs...A protests...But everything is useless...

 

[antonis32123]

I would love poker rooms to change the payout structure , add more paid places , pay less for the winner or top 3 places , wouldn't this hurt a lot the gameplay or the players' motivation to participate in a tourney I guess

 

[StreetPhd]

Is the real problem Late Registration or does that not play a part?
I'm still trying to figure this all out.
Thanks

 

[UkoChebuko]

The late registration is not a problem. The problem is your stack value. In the late stages. The "chip value". Back in the days this "chip value" was more.

 

[RicardoInciarte]

My main issue is that solid, mid places ( often place 5 - 20 in 200/ 400 entrants) do not get enough of the reward. I find places 1-3 get too much and often the tail is too long. Really, only top 10% should get rewarded, not top 15% or 20%.

Basically would prefer to see the payout curve a bit more flatter, with top 2/3% taking more of the prize - because lets face it, skill only takes you that far, there is a fair amount of luck involved.

Anyone else agree?

I see your point, but I believe mincashe are very good for the game and reaching the top 15-20% of a large MTTs with 2 hours of late reg I don't find it that easy to but we have to remember that poker is a game that live from recreational players I consider myself to be a good player above average of a recreational but still recreational that is winner player we can't always look Poker from the Regular hard grinder view ... I like the structure as it is now maybe it could be better don't know but I like when I get some bad beatsbut still can fight for that min cash and come back next time ... Also on FT I do think 9th place is way way far from 1st and 2nd but this motivate player to keep playing and fighting for that extra cash otherwise there would be more deals and less poker in my opinion

 

[amatola]

An example : ACR $2500 GTD / $2.75 buy in - 771 entrants as a typical comp.

1) Firstly - top 180 is being paid -so around top 25% - I would be happy to trim this down a bit. Max top 15%
2) 180th is getting $5
3) 1st is getting $350
4) 9th is getting $25 - on the FT and $2500 total prize. hmmm not good IMO.
5) 18th (down to two tables) $12.50 again out of $2500!!!

Some serious disconects IMO between 180th and 18th. Getting to the final two tables should be rewarded yet is only worth and extra $7.50. And then getting to the final table for $25 is way to little IMO vs the final $350 prize.

As said in my first post, by trimming a bit from the top three and shortning the tale, the upper middle spots, 5 - 18 especially, but up to the top 36 could be fattened out.

I do feel these places are not getting the rewards due considering the effort needed to get there.

 

[amatola]

I just want to add, if these final payouts became slightly more linier ( so not such massive jumps at the end) I think the games would progress a bit quick as people became less nittier.

On a personal note, I rember playing on in a huge MTT on ACR. And after 12 or so hours of play I ether got 11th for $14 or 14th for $11. Sure it was an ultra micro ($800 gtd/ 25c entry) but again, massive tail - we where in the money for hours, think the last 5 hours we where grinding through the tail.

 

[vanish123]

agreed, top 3 payout a bit less. and 10-12% are ITM

 

[marianexbj]

It is coherent that it is this way, tournaments have a lot of variance, but that 15 or 20% of the players can charge is beneficial for everyone, normally you can get to charges in some tournaments to cover entry costs and when you get to the Better prizes you can make a difference in your favor, as long as you are a medium winner at the level you are playing. And for the rooms it is to continue counting on the players who can at least win even a mini cash in a tournament and encourages them to continue playing. If fewer players were paid, I think it would affect everyone since players will stop playing more frequently.

 

[Alizona]

It's pretty brutal, yeah. This past week I finished 3 times in the top 25 places of tournaments that had between 1500 and 2000 entries... I played about 11 hours in each tournament... and my reward? They were $5.50 tournaments with first prize around 2000 dollars or so... and for finishing in 22 or 29 place, I ended up cashing for like 15 or 20 dollars each time... I remember laughing afterwards, doing the math and realizing I earned about one dollar per hour for all my work.

It's almost enough to make me quit, but the truth is, I've never played poker for the money, I play for the love of the game... the only reason I want to win money is so I can play at the higher levels and keep improving my game against better competition.

Basically, even in a 2000 player tournament, if you don't make the Final Table, you're not going to make much money at all, and yeah it def sucks. It always feels like a waste of time. Thankfully, I love playing poker so that feeling is gone by the next day, and I do it all over again (the definition of insanity LOL).