What is the ideal poker tournament payout?

[makisaa]

The ideal would be a modest situation, where we wouldn't have only a few paid positions and also we wouldn't have many paid positions with tiny prices. It should be a more tempting ranking were a fair number of players would get a price, but not a crowd of prices just a little more from the buy in.

 

[maronza1]

More places paid with the consequence of lower minimum cash and smaller pay jumps?
In the previous Pokerstars Cardschat freerolls if you win a dollar a day you are looking at $365 a year.

With 5 places at replay, fewer people actually win dollars after making the FT. Missing out on a payout can be frustrating.
Most people I know lose more than that $365 per year. So having a few places paid with a higher minimum cash and substantial pay jumps, actually i dis-incentivises many people and leads to less tournament participants. Nine places would help restore the incentive to play.

I had one friend who won a enough for a poker holiday at a casino, which he and his wife had a great time.
Over the next 3 years he lost double that amount and gave up poker. This guy was a good player.

I think small incremental wins are far more easier on the mind and the wallet.
We all wish we can win big and how many of us achieve that outcome?

I agree with you, I think they chose fewer and bigger pays because replay is not a real money site, and the pays are either ACR or paypal

 

[semsaltov77777]

I love it like before, the winner takes it all, 1st place!!! I used to play dafa poker freerolls for a long time, so the only first place was $50 and I won it more than once)))

 

[CNXRegie]

The ideal poker tournament payout structure for me would involve more players making the money, even if it means a lower minimum cash and smaller pay jumps, rather than paying fewer players with higher minimum cash and larger pay jumps.

This is because I'd prefer to see more players getting paid, which would encourage greater participation in future tournaments.

 

[Lucho.riv9]

I’d say I prefer fewer prize spots but with much more money for each. While it’s frustrating to go deep and not make it to the prizes, I don't feel like it's a reward to play just to break even on the tournament buy-in haha.

 

[flabilim]

In my opinion, the more people win prizes, the more likely I am to be among them, and that motivates me more when you join the line of winners.

 

[gena31]

I much prefer games with more seats paid out followed by lower minimums and smaller payout spikes. And of course, everything should be in moderation, so that there is a great desire to compete for first place.

 

[Flyer35]

Minimum payout should never be less than buy-in. I find that to be like a slap in the face - you place but still lose.

Ideally the minimum payout should be twice the buy-in, so whatever percentage allows this to happen would be my preference.

And freerolls should never have less than a $1.10 payout. Playing for 2 - 3 hours to win a few cents is a really big slap in the face.

 

[thejuice1]

i am much more of a fan of pay less places with bigger payouts in smaller buy in tournaments for sure. in larger buy in tourneys, which are usually multi day tourneys, then id prefer more places paid with a lower minimum cash, due to the fact that you have to play for so long, so id prefer to get something.

 

[bullkk]

For me, the fewer prizes, the more interesting the tournament.

 

[GarotoMaroto]

3 last table paid, and 3 first players won most part of the money, the first at least 3 times what the third won.
A lot of money in the total prize so even the last in the third table gets at least 7 times the buy in XD
God bless

 

[MTCashman]

I've always liked more payouts but only if min cash is at least double your buy-in back. Never been a fan of the min cash being the same as your buy-in.

 

[WrongUsername]

any tourney that they don´t suckout on me every hand.

 

[VictorOd]

I think tournament payout with more places paid with the consequence of lower minimum cash and smaller pay jumps is better particularly for communities like ours. It helps to create more friendly atmosphere, less intensive poker battles, more relaxed chill fun games.

 

[Bluffzone68]

My opinion is to pay more places
In pokerstars free rolls before, we would get 27 places out of maybe 180 players, so now in replay with about 100 players playing, I would say at least 12 places to be paid.

 

[choche0372]

As for me 12 paid places (2 tables) are perfect with about 100 - 120 players.

 

[gustavofuentes2]

Personally, I like the payouts to be spread out into a larger field. This makes Poker tournaments much more appealing to players. After all, not everyone will win a major poker tournament but at least this way it keeps players coming back to at least make it to ITM and then hopes to keep increasing their bankroll. We what Poker to go on forever. LOL

 

[oriole]

I would prefer a payout structure where the top 10% of players are paid more evenly. This would mean less of a top-heavy distribution and more consistency in the payouts, giving more players a meaningful return on their investment. While I understand the appeal of large prizes for the top few finishers, I think a more balanced approach would create a fairer and more enjoyable experience for the broader pool of players.

 

[lyki67]

First 10 % of players win. First 3 players win 20 %, 15 % and 10 %...

 

[Fabi408]

Personally, I prefer a handsome reward for reaching a tournament. It's no use playing for hours just to get the buy-in back.

 

[Poker_Mike]

What is the ideal poker tournament payout to you?

One with a few places paid with a higher minimum cash and substantial pay jumps? Or more places paid with the consequence of lower minimum cash and smaller pay jumps?

​

Thanks to @CRStals for this topic idea.

I seem to have success with survivor tournaments.

So....same payout to all winners.

No pay jumps.

Also eliminates final table play and can somebody verify if it ends the tournament a little sooner?

Thanks for asking.

 

[EvertonGirl]

I prefer more payouts, I think it's frustrating to get to a FT but have nothing to show for it.

 

[pancho_1954]

I prefer: One with a few places paid with a higher minimum cash and substantial pay jumps, sometimes I think that investing a lot of time just to recover the entry or have a very small profit is not worth it, but many times the tournaments are like that and I can play them without a problem, it's just that sometimes I have that thought of investing my time in those types of tournaments

 

[hardongear]

The ideal MTT payout to me starts from the bottom and goes up. Whatever the last paid place is it should pay at least double the buy-in cost NOTHING less. Bounty and PKO...MTT's should be the same. The last place paid should always pay double what the buy-in is cause even in bounty and pko's you can get to the last paid place without taking a single bounty.

Cheers!!!

 

[dompoker]

I think big prizes are better, that's the way tournaments should be.