blonde poker forum

On the Grosvenor Grand Prix Update, this Deal was reported by Floppy....

Ok, what I've garned from the deal is that £10k has been taken from 1st, and £5k from 2nd and 3rd each and redistributed to the lower places, so that 9th gets £9k, 8th gets £11k, 7th gets £13k and 6th gets £15k, same as 5th I think.

So I said......

Very wise, too. I think this is the best UK Comp of the year, & I'm sad I could not, for the first time ever, play it. (Due to work).

But this bit of "business" - which occurs annually in this Comp, & indeed most other big comps, surely tells us, & the organisers, (Grosvenor & Blue Square, both of whom do so much for Tourney Poker in the UK) that it's time to "flatten" the Prize Structures. At a guess, 80% of ALL comps in which I play end up in a chop or deal, which is all fine & dandy. But if the Prize Pool was better-structured to start with, this would not be necessary.

Then el blondie chimed in - & surely nobody has more experience of Final Tables - & said this.....

And just to explain to the Tourney organisors throughout the world of poker. 'Flatten' the structure doesnt mean pay more players.
What we need is the removal of 2nd place being double 3rd place, and 1st place being double 2nd. These should be 50% increases. Take the money off 1st and 2nd and add money to 4th to 9th places.
This would help remove the deal making from poker.

So - & forget - for NOW - what you think the %'s should be, but lets start with a simple yes or no......

Should Tournament Prize Pools for final Tables....

Remain as are.

Be flatter.

You can Vote via the Option at the top of the page.

Be flatter. Kev posted a spreadsheet that iPoker were planning on using for their comps in the future, and the structures were pretty good. Pity these aren't universal.

 :goodpost:

That's one thing I've always wondered about with tournament payouts.

One question I have is, I play a lot of 6 seater STT's and only top 2 get paid which is fine but 2nd gets 1.5*buy-in whereas 1st gets 4.5*buy-in which seems somewhat disproportionate to me a 4:2 split seems fairer to me (I know it's not much difference but it just seems harsh to get to heads-up and then only get 1.5*buy-in).

Please note, this Poll refers to LIVE Poker Only. And why? Because most Online Cardrooms already do it better. Sorry, Flatter.....

There are a few people who have voted against the structure being flatter? If this is you, why?

I voted for flatter but those jumps sure are nice to make!

Meanwhile, over at Walsall, The Grand Prix Final continues, & the players have just done their FOURTH different "deal" since the Final began, in each case, to flatten the Prize Money.

APAT live events have a flatter structure (sort of!!). 4th-9th receiving exactly the same payout.

Is that the sort of structure you would prefer? Surely that's even worse than the payout structure of an event like the Grand Prix!

As you've brought it up, I don't like the APAT structure. Flat is good. No jumps in prize money at all - I'm not so keen.

yeah i agree

but with apat the money is needed to pay that way so that you can pay off alot of your costs with a final table

i certainly wouldnt play in a bigger buy in event with that flat a structure

the concept..right or wrong...is 1st 2nd and 3rd get medals and the like, below that the money is flat...


most of the problem in traditional payout structures to my mind is the big leap from 1st to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd which makes deals inevitable, no one (or few) want to gamble on say a coin flip headsa up when double the prize money is at stake 1st to 2nd

At least APAT has significantly flattened these leaps

Not really!

APAT payout structure is: (Taken from www.apat.com)
1st - 50% of stakes (2.5 * 2nd) + Added Prize
2nd - 20% of stakes (2 * 3rd)
3rd - 10% of stakes

4th-9th (Equal share of 20% of stakes)

Maybe APAT could lead the way by producing the ideal live tournament payout structure.

how can they do that

then they dont have a headline figure to put in the press saying £7500 for the winner or £5000 depending on the runners

justl like all promoters they look at first prize instead of the overall prize pool of £15k + seat

4k 3k 2k 1k for a 200 runner comp would be much better inho with 500 down to 10th and 200 from 11th to 20

for amatures this make more sence

Actually I think the section Sharky refers to needs to be updated

Next weekend's championships at Walsall has 200 runners at £75=£15,000

1st £3,500 (23%) plus a GUKPT seat woth £1,500, admittedly

2nd £2,250 (15%)

3rd £1,250 (sub 10%)

then flat to 9th, then paying a smaller amount to 10-18th

this is what my comment "significant flattening" refers to
 

that sounds much better again for amatuers only

what is the problem?
If you are happy with the existing structure then fine, if not you can change it via a deal.
It's our money let us do with it as we will, APAT has already tried to f**k this option up and it is plainly wrong.

Shockingly bad poll, please put in the option that "whatever the structure we can do deals"

and if participants cannot agree a deal or even more frustratingly one person objects then we put up with it?

Of course, doh!!

Constructive as usual  ;)

You enter a comp knowing the structure, tough shit if it you dont like the structure or do a deal to change it.

would you support flatter prize structures in principle?

a) in major festivals they currently aren't on offer and

b) there's no certainty of getting a deal in the latter stages anyway as some, for valid reasons, won't consider deals

So the players don't have a lot of clout or choices do they?

ian just cause APAt say no deals and use cheques to pay people doesnt mean you can do a deal

same as any comp if you do a deal behind there back that doesnt include the trophey and the added seat they cant stop you

NO, there will always be deals, rightfully so, it is OUR money, end of.
Doesn't even matter what the structure is if it makes sense people deal.
Even if you add money you are wrong to impose no deal rules because you didn't add all the money.

I have known competitions where deals made perfect sense but, for example, a sponsored pro refused the deal for his own reasons.

Re your added money point, without the organisation negotiating to get the sponsorship with added money, there would be no added money. Both directly and indirectly, the sponsor and the organiser (by negotiation) add all the money

If the sponsor or organiser added ALL the money then they can of course dictate, if not then they surely have no right?
APT for example, they add a prize, fine but they should NEVER dictate on others money, stick the ADDED prize wherever but my money should (rightfully) be the posession of the people actually in the comp.

You have a warped view on this stuff as does tikay so little point arguing

ok, we'll agree to differ.

I think APAT have every right to dictate the terms of the tournament/association as they see fit, if people dont like it, as you alluded to earlier, they can play elsewhere. What I dont think they should be doing is doing it based on the demands of a sponsor. Yes its great that theres money added, but that shouldn't let the sponsor force the entire policy of the association (I got no idea if they have forced this or not btw, just saying in case they have)

Also when APATs board gets elected, cant the members demand a vote on things like payout structure/deal making possibilities? you would think so, being a peoples organisation


Anyways, back to the topic at hand, can someone give a good example of what a flatter payout structure would be? and for all the people saying they want it flatter... how flat do you want to go?

I'd actually like to hear your rationalisation of stopping people from dealing with their own money as you do with APT.

In response to a question in a thread about deals on 14-08-07 tikay was posed the following question

"So how come Tikay , APAT doesn't support deal making??"

and he answered as follows

Because they are National Championships, & you can't chop a National Championship. APAT Events are also not really about money, as those who play them readily testify. And our Prize Pool is is structured flat (nearly said "nice & flat"!) so there is not much benefit in chopping anyway. It's designed for, & fit for, purpose.

Again, the evidence suggests this is correct. In only one APAT event was a Deal ever mentioned during the whole Season, and as soon as I reminded the player of the APAT ethos,  the matter was quickly & happily dropped. Eventually, I suppose one might get chopped up, but as English/Irish/Welsh/Scottish/UK/European/World Amateur Championships, it does not stack up to chop them. And the players know that, they want that trophy, that Gold Medal. that title, and those Bragging rights - "AMATEUR CHAMPION". And with a fairly narrow gap in the top 3 money places, but the Added Money GUKPT Seat thrown in, (or EPT/WSOP as was) they are keenly contested in a lovely spirit.

Payout structures in live situations can vary from conservative to top-heavy (where most of the money goes to the winner). Most people like top-heavy payouts so they can get a big windfall if they win (we can all dream). A flatter payout structure can be interpreted as rewarding marginal players (and minimise variance). In my opinion I like the flatter structure, however I can take IFM's comments on board about being the players money etc etc but if one person don't wanna deal its dead in the water (but it's still a choice). It's a toughie and there will be more debate (rows/fights/altercations)

no such demands from the sponsor

An Association committee is in the process of being formed (nominations, elections. votes etc etc, see APAT forum) and I would think that Association committee would canvas the members for views and then represent those not only to APAT Tour management for operation in our own events but also to express views as a players association body on payout structures to Tournament organisers

Don't we play poker so we can get the opportunity to risk life changing amounts of money on the turn of a card?

Sample payout Structue

30%
20%
15%
12%
8%
5%
4%
3.5%
2.5%

guaranteeing 9th, say in a 100 runner £100 freezeout £250


that float your boat totalise?


standard normally

40% plus
20%
10%
and so on down to break even plus a marginal amount for 9th

not really, personally. Minimising variance is important

You are relying on everyone agreeing for a deal to be done. Even if the majority are in favour, one person can halt the deal from being made. That's not much of a democracy, so perhaps cardrooms should flatten structures in response to the amount of deals that are currently being made so they reflect what the majority want.

On the flipside, people know the prize structure prior to the event and don't have to play. Also, they can play online if they wish to play for a flatter structure.


If it's our money, then surely we deserve the option to choose our own payout structure.

Personally I feel that it would be better if APAT were to provide the ideal payout structure as a model, after all isn't that part of what APAT stands for, setting the standards ?

Then add the sponsors prize on top of  the medals etc.

If you are a "Circuit" Pro, making your living from Uk festival/major event poker, do you have the choice not to play?

There isn't a flatter payout alternative for them is there?

yes, this must be part of what the Association Committee is about, making such recommendations, and I think this is a process that is starting

i remember the first time i got near the money in a big comp
(2 day event in the vic £750 buyin)
we came back for 2nd say with 18 players and only 20 getting paid

someone suggested taking 1k off the 50k first prize to give 500 to 20th and 19th

now to me this would of been great but 2 top pros said no and deal was off

its hard to get a saver like that through thats why flat structures are important


but when the first and 2nd place money had 25k between them i think its there right to deal if they want

This may not be the time or place as the thread is going a bit off topic and there is a whole forum over there for this sort of thing.. I don't have a big issue with the APAT structure, in that I don't have to play if I don't want to, and if I choose to play I should put up. But I do think there structure being totally flat is detrimental to the game. You can let go and play how you want with a view that you won't have lost anything*. But it makes it harder to put the pressure on when your opponents have nothing to lose* also.

*I mean no immediate loss. E.g. £1000 from 9th to 4th. If you go out 9th-6th you were far enough away from any prize increase to think that you still had a long way to go.

So overall I want a flatter structure to a comp. But I don't want it completely flat, especially on the final table. Small increases will do, but increases none the less.

All this fuss over a little 75 quid comp!

;sleep;

In answer to the orginal question, maybe slightly. 30% to the winner in a tournament with over 200 runners is slightly top heavy, with this size field I think 25% to the winner is ideal.

Wrong. The question never referred to, alluded to, or mentioned APAT. It cited the case of the Grosvenor Grand Prix, & Big Buck Comp, & it was those sort of Events to which I posed a quite simple question - "should the payouts be flatter".

I'm more than happy to debate the APAT Payout Structure, but let's do it in a seperate thread, because they are National Amateur Championships, a quite different thing to a Big-Buck Comp. So start the thread, & we'll debate it. This thread is for a differnt purpose, & I note that thus far, the blondes are overwhelmingly in favour of flatter structures, & all the smokescreens & red herrings in this thread cannot hide that fact.

Now it's up to the Organisers to give the players what they clearly want, judged by this Poll, & by the fact that the overwhelming number of Tourneys end up in deals.

this always seems a bit weird to me and I can't quite put my finger on why. Obv for example I could set up a comp in my house with 5 people in it and call it the Amateur Championship of the Universe if I so desired and I can't think of anyone better than tighty and tikay to run anything to do with poker (never met des so can't comment on him).

But to say because they are National Amateur Championships means that we must do XYZ when it is only the National Amateur Championships because that is what you have decided to call it.

Well as my Amateur Championship of the Universe is such a highly prestigious event and the winner will receive a trip to the moon which has been added by our sponsor, we are only allowing attractive females to enter and it is imperative that they play in the nude...

I am explaining this badly but I dunno just seems weird to me.

My answer is a combination of both.

Flatten the % but keep the 50%+ difference between 1st and  2nd and ensure 10% of the prize for 4th.

Pay more places; as I know of many players that make final tables; top 5 get paid in a 60 runners event and are doing their brains.

By keeping the 50% difference,(ideally no more than 50% of the prize pool between 1st and 2nd), you offer a carrot that would make a good win worthwhile.

Deal making, as previously mentioned. is always an option as it's the players themselves who are putting up their own money.

at the moment many prize pools there is a 100% difference between first and 2nd

ie first gets 40k second gets 20k

50% difference would be much better with first getting 30k and 2nd getting 20k

Sounds quite good to me. Is it televised?

Can I PLEASE do the updates

 ;angel;

I would certainly agree with a flatter pay out stucture, but I would also like to see a standardised payout structure used by all UK cardrooms.  Nothing annoys me more when I see needless places being paid.  I would opt for a 1 prize per full table at the beginning of the comp, so if there are 69 players then we get 6 prizes and there would be no option for a 7th prize - this is something that really gets on my goat.

In regards to a flatter payout structure most definitely the top 3 places should be reduced and re-distributed amongst the rest of the FT.

NO to DEALS!!

I agree about ONLY paying 10% of the field - something that annoys me.

You could look back on my posts on this subject from the first time it was raised till now and you will see this is exactly my point, the problem is that there is no real way of doing it.
All a cardroom can do is advertise a structure and see who shows up, if its full they won't change things anyway.
There has long been a lobby for freezeouts and flatter structures but the fact is these are overwhelmed by bodies actually turning up at rebuys with steep structures.

The poll is a bit rigged though, it just isn't that black and white.

Do you really believe that flattening the structure will prevent deals?
I doubt anything will prevent deals and as said before, good!
The thing about all this that i find odd is that yourself and tighty had the opportunity to introduce a flatter structure but instead went for a much steeper one!

2-3 times as many people turn up at my local casino for the £25 freezeout with a flattish payout than the £20 rebuy comp
dispite a rival casino having a rebuy on the same night as the freezeout the rival casino gets 1/4 of the runners

if comps are advertised better and run proper then NEW people will come to the freezeouts where as they play a rebuy once and walk away as they want to play proper poker and not bingo for 2 hours

this is simply mistaken. See my earlier post in the thread highlighting the payout structure at this week's event

Next weekend's championships at Walsall has 200 runners at £75=£15,000

1st £3,500 (23%) plus a GUKPT seat woth £1,500, admittedly

2nd £2,250 (15%)

3rd £1,250 (sub 10%)

then flat to 9th, then paying a smaller amount to 10-18th

this is what my comment "significant flattening" refers to
 

GUKPT   STRUCTURE PAYS 1ST      32%             ONLY 2 CHOPPED
 

The poll is a bit rigged though, it just isn't that black and white.

It's not wrong at all Ian, it was a plain & unambigious quiestion. And 81% said they'd prefer a flatter structure. Seems fairly convincing to me. And if you cannot accept the Poll result, well look at the reality - most steeply structured Prize Pools end up getting chopped. Fact. In Tourneys I've played in during the last 2 months, I'd say the Poll exactly represents reality - at LEAST 80% of them have been chopped.

The thing about all this that i find odd is that yourself and tighty had the opportunity to introduce a flatter structure but instead went for a much steeper one!

Wrong again. As you well know Ian, in APAT we have structured the payouts the way we have for a very specific reason.

Elsewhere, where I've had the opportunity to devise Prize Structures for Events for which I have an organisational role, alone or with others, & I always go for flatter structures. These include blonde Bashes, Sky Poker Live Days, Sporting Odds Live Events, & more recently, my proposal for the Prize Structure at the Virgin Fessie (The Broadway, 24th & 25th November) was accepted. We have 200 runners at £100, and £5,000 added, & we've allocated the top ten Prizes thusly......

WINNER - £6,500

2nd - £5,000

3rd - £3,500

4th - £2,000

5th - £1,500

6th - £1,000

7th - £800

8th - £700

9th - £600

10th - £500.

Correct. We do NOT ban deals, but we do discourage them. Only once in Season One was there ever a suggestion of a Deal, & that convo ended quickly & amicably when we reminded the players of the APAT ethos.

i agree

its impossible to ban deals, but by having a shallow structure and a freindly word they are discouraged

of course if people did do a deal they could find that apat (or the sponsors) could withdraw the added seat and ban the players from future events

Our sponsors have no such rights or control over any APAT Policy whatsoever. They give us Added Money, & we pass all of it on. It's no more or less than that.

It's hypothetical to suggest APAT would consider Banning anyone who did a Deal in an APAT National Championship, but it's highly unlikely & would not get my Vote or approval. APAT discourages deals, that's all, & the players do not want to do Deals in APAT Events. The facts from Season One confirm this unequivocally.

APAT will be around for a very long time, judging by the demand there is for seats, & by Sponsors recognition of it's merit as a Series. Eventually, someone will do some "businesss" in an APAT National Championship Final, it's inevitable I guess, but the world won't stop turning, & APAT will continue to go from strength to strength, because it gives it's Members precisely what they want. Excellent value, Added Money, & a terrrific atmosphere in which serious poker can be enjoyed.

A large majority of players, for whatever reason, attempt to change the payout structure during the business end of the game....and that is often messy, awkward and so easily avoidable.

A steady incline for the last 10% of players is pretty straight forward to offer....very few people seem to want a skateboard type of slope!

Wrong again. As you well know Ian, in APAT we have structured the payouts the way we have for a very specific reason.


£4500 and ept copenhagen seat for 1st

£1800

£900

£300 4th to 9th

Extremely top heavy yet you "discourage" deals?

Pointless argument, it little matters what the structure is because there will be deals regardless.

I think it's a good point that with the present types of structures you can deal flatter but with a flatter structure to begin with you cannot deal steeper so in effect you are taking an option away.

p.s. the poll is still dodgy

p.p.s. I still have chips and card tables for sale............

Extremely top heavy yet you "discourage" deals?

Correct. And the APAT players don't want to deal. The record reflects this, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. It may change, as may our prize structure as soon as the Members Committee is formed, but hitherto, it's a fact.

But players DO want to do deals in regular Tourneys. The record reflects that too.

Will you be at Walsall for APAT this weekend?

How much do you want for the chips & card tables?

From which I deduce you don't like the result of the Poll......? ;)

Why can't APAT events have a flatter structure???. Granted they have the added prize which makes it automatically top heavy but if you have a flatter money structure this surely supports your belief this is best for the players and they would continue to play to win just for the added prize of the seat. Flat payments from 4th to 10th is one of the worst structures I can imagine and takes away from the game as players know they may as well gamble rather than play a typical poker as they don't gain any advantage by merely climbing up the ladder as in a normal comp.

And maybe one reason APAT comps have not been subject to deals is that many players are recreational players, maybe playing in their first live comp and not familar/comfortable with raising the issue of doing a deal.

They can, but we chose not to go that way, for reasons specific to APAT which we've explained many times.

The Members Committee will be deciding such things very soon, & if they decide to change it, it''ll change. For Season One & the beginning of Season Two, Des, Tighty & myself had to decide these things, & we've hit the right note judging by the popularity of the Series & lack of Deals, but soon it'll be the decision of the Members Committee, so nobody will be able to argue then. For now, if anyone thinks it's wrong - & the Players don't thus far - blame us three!

Remember, I am generally IN FAVOUR of flatter structures, so I must have had compelling reasons to go against the grain here. These have been articulated many, many, times.

Not at all, i seem to constantly be saying i believe that people WHO PLAY IN THE COMPS should have the ability to set them up as they wish, the logistics of this are very difficult though.
I am not against flatter structures at all, i am pro choice.
I have started running a small comp at a local pub (don't tell the GC) on Wednesdays (the new rules killed off Rileys, 4 runners there last week BTW).
Anyway we had 19 runners and i said ok we'll pay top 5 and nice and flat structure, put it to the floor and we ended up with.........................

£480 prizepool

Winner £280
2nd £120
3rd £80

You give em what they want i say.

Walsall saturday?
Can i still qualify? been busy with work, the kids and he ex robbing my car for the last 6 weeks!!

Too late to qualify for Walsall now Ian, sorry. But it'd be good to see you at an APAT National Event someday soon, I believe you'd enjoy the APAT Experience a great deal, if you'll pardon the pun!

In my opinion payout stuctures at many venues are ridiculous.

You could turn up at the casino - I would suggest 12 noon at the latest - and try to get in as an alternate.

I first thought yeah right, but with the new rules i suppose they have to allow alternates.

Taken from the APAT briefing:

I think at a £300 comp at the broadway earlier this year the payouts were something like

1st 14k
2nd 5.5k

I can't remember the %'s but all I know was the top 3 got the lot and 1st was more than double 2nd, it was flipping nuts. I can't disagree more about the 'you can always do a deal attitude', I had a situation where some random bloke who and I had never seen before and not seen since tried to back out of our verbal arrangement and there would have been nothing I could have done about it because the casino did not recognise deals. I got the cash in the end after basically saying WTF you can't do that, but its unfair however unlikely it is to happen, to put people in a situation like that.

The " You can always do a deal" argument doesn't stand up. If prize structures were flatter, players could always do a deal to make them steeper again, but I don't think that would happen too often.

horses for courses, but the average poker player is playing £10-£20 rebuys  in the majority, it has always been this way and surely will continue.

gl

Walsall changed their £50 freeze back to a rebuy because of lack of demand a couple of years back and now their £30 freeze has become a triple chance comp (though i may have read that wrong).

Woot?

"i tell you what guys lets do a deal, top prize is £1500 but i'll take £2000.........ok?"
Erm, i think not.

As for the dealing argument not standing up, i think you'll find in practise it already is.
The fact is there is no real lobby for flatter structures, so few actually make it the effort to change things and the folks that shout loudest are those opposed to change (not necessarily because they disagree with the change itself).
Look at this poll,  1% of members voted...........................