Pay out structure - minor places....

DOHHHHHHH

7pm £500 gtd tourny last night, for finishing between 10th and 20th, you won £5, in a tourny that cost £5.50 to play. 

In the rake-less BH this afternoon, 10-20th pays £3. For a £5 entry fee.

What do people think about this? - It's abit pointless to play for so long, cash, and lose money??

I prefer top heavy prize pools, but I understand others prefer more places played...

So how about pay top 12? or top 15? But ensure that cashing in a tournament results in a profit?????????????

Opinionz?

(the prizes in the rebuys is really good, even for making a min cash, you 4x your initial buy in) - Can something like this be worked out for normal tournys? 

NODEAL

In Response to Pay out structure - minor places....:

7pm £500 gtd tourny last night, for finishing between 10th and 20th, you won £5, in a tourny that cost £5.50 to play.  In the rake-less BH this afternoon, 10-20th pays £3. For a £5 entry fee. What do people think about this? - It's abit pointless to play for so long, cash, and lose money?? I prefer top heavy prize pools, but I understand others prefer more places played... So how about pay top 12? or top 15? But ensure that cashing in a tournament results in a profit????????????? Opinionz? (the prizes in the rebuys is really good, even for making a min cash, you 4x your initial buy in) - Can something like this be worked out for normal tournys? 
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

spot on m8....I made the same point a couple of days ago...   saying..  no one wants to just win thier own money back....   I suggested 10 places pay out.

silentbob

I think the general thing is that it's usually around 10% of the field that gets paid. I could be wrong but I think that's a fairly universal structure both live & online (bear in mind I've never played live so I could easily be wrong here!).

I don't particularly mind things as they are really. I agree that in many respects it seems a bit pointless but on the other hand if you take a massive chip hit on a cooler just before the bubble then at least you can pretty much get your buy in back.

MereNovice

Bounty Hunters would be a special case, I believe, since only half of the entrance fees go into the prize pool for placings.
Anyone cashing is likely to also have scored some bounties so they will make more than their entrance fee.

scotty77

Sky have a flawed payout scheme for tournies that get between 100-200 runners.

If theres 101 runners then there are 20 paid.  If there are 199 runners then there are 20 paid.

pryce6

+1 to this Doh

Red_King

"What do people think about this? - It's abit pointless to play for so long, cash, and lose money??"

+1 Doh,      As a minimum cash, I want to cover my buy-in.


"Sky have a flawed payout scheme for tournies that get between 100-200 runners.

If theres 101 runners then there are 20 paid.  If there are 199 runners then there are 20 paid."


Sky need to re-structure the percentage payout table, divided into say 5 or 10 players, that way the number of paid places is better reflected against the number of starting players. (Just like the Satellite structure).

NB: Other sites display a payout table structure (places paid per starters) that is shown prior to tourny.
That allows you to decide beforehand if it is worth the buy-in, to finish in the lower end of the cash.

QUICKFEET

+1 Dohhhhhhhhh

GaryQQQ

Bounty Hunters are a special case, but having a min cash the same as the entry fee in a regular tournament can't be right, pay more to fewer IMO.

Scotty makes a very good point, there should obviously be more steps between 100 and 200.

MAXALLY

WTH...... you on about doh?


.....Minors should not be playing poker anyway!!!

unknown_username

+ another

As many prizes as possible please but none less than entry unless BH

belsibub

That's what you get with top heavy cash pay outs.Either reduce top pay out percentages and spread the wealth or make it even more top heavy by reducing cash pay outs and increase bottom pay out simples.As for number of pay out it does seem strange that in a mostly 6 max game here till you get 50+ runners 5 or less get paid.It has been stated elsewhere who wants to bubble on final table.To me the jumps the more runners you get seem big and strange.

DTWBANDIT

  +1 Doh spot on

unknown_username

In Response to Pay out structure - minor places....:

7pm £500 gtd tourny last night, for finishing between 10th and 20th, you won £5, in a tourny that cost £5.50 to play.  In the rake-less BH this afternoon, 10-20th pays £3. For a £5 entry fee. What do people think about this? - It's abit pointless to play for so long, cash, and lose money?? I prefer top heavy prize pools, but I understand others prefer more places played... So how about pay top 12? or top 15? But ensure that cashing in a tournament results in a profit????????????? Opinionz? (the prizes in the rebuys is really good, even for making a min cash, you 4x your initial buy in) - Can something like this be worked out for normal tournys? 
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

Good feedback so far guys, 

As some of you have already pointed out, Bounty Hunters are a special case, since the cash pool is halved, therefore there will always be occasions where the bottom pay out tier is less than the original buy-in.

Rebuy tournaments are the opposite extreme, therefore not really a fair comparison, since the no. entrants is fixed, therefore the % payouts are fixed from the off, but the prizepool will often double, resulting in inflated actual payouts across all places compared to a freezeout.

I can't think of a scenario in a regular tournament on Sky Poker where you would ever cash and receive less than the buy-in.

Scotty: the point you make on the levels is a good one, you are correct that currently 100 & 199 runner tournaments both pay top 20.

Since the % paid out is the same, but the prize pool increases with more runners, that means if there are 199 runners then the minor places will get a much bigger actual pay out than a 100 runners for the same tournament. If this tournament had 200 runners then the prize pool would barely increase but the places paid increases to 30, resulting in a lower payout to the minors.

I'll happily review the pay out structures next week, but as always it's a fine balance between paying more places vs bigger % pay outs to less people.

Keep the feedback coming it's always appreciated

Regards

Adam

oynutter

imo it shouldn't jump from 10 to 20--- much better if it went 14 16 18

The_Don90

In Response to Re: Pay out structure - minor places....:

imo it shouldn't jump from 10 to 20--- much better if it went 14 16 18
Posted by oynutter

+1

TRIP5

prefer top 6 pay...reaching ft to not get paid is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad imo

xx

SHANXTA

Everytime i've played a 6max tourny of other sites the prize jumps always go up every 6 places (apart from top 6 obv) so if i tourny reached say 150 runners, they would pay 1st - 6th on a sliding scale as normal, and then 7-12th and 13-18th.

The_Don90

In Response to Re: Pay out structure - minor places....:

Everytime i've played a 6max tourny of other sites the prize jumps always go up every 6 places (apart from top 6 obv) so if i tourny reached say 150 runners, they would pay 1st - 6th on a sliding scale as normal, and then 7-12th and 13-18th.
Posted by SHANXTA

Fantastico idea