blonde poker forum

The idea behind this poll is to eliminate the payout structures players would least like to see. There are 8 options please vote for your top 4 choices. The top 6 will go through to the next poll.(and so on until only two remain( a bit like pop idol!!))

It is quite a lengthy poll(apologies for this but there is no other way)

Considering that most deals are initiated when there are 4 or 5 players remaining this poll only focusses on the top 5 places and assumes that there will be 9 or 10 prizes in total.

Which of the following structures would encourage more play and less deals in the later stages of tournament play?

Payout examples are based on a prizepool of 10,000.

Option 1
1st - 30.0% =  3,000
2nd - 16.0% =  1,600
3rd - 13.0% =  1,300
4th - 11.0% =  1,100
5th -  9.0% =  900

Option 2
1st - 40.0% =  4,000
2nd - 21.0% =  2,100
3rd - 12.0% =  1,200
4th -  6.5% =  650
5th -  5.0% =  500

Option 3
1st - 35.0% =  3,500
2nd - 18.0% =  1,800
3rd - 11.0% =  1,100
4th -  9.0% =  900
5th -  7.0% =  700

Option 4
1st - 40.0% =  4,000
2nd - 20.0% =  2,000
3rd - 10.0% =  1,000
4th -  7.5% =  750
5th -  6.0% =  600

Option 5
1st - 30.0% =  3,000
2nd - 20.0% =  2,000
3rd - 15.0% =  1,500
4th - 10.0% =  1,000
5th -  7.5% =  750

Option 6
1st - 35.0% =  3,500
2nd - 21.0% =  2,100
3rd - 14.0% =  1,400
4th -  7.0% =  700
5th -  6.0% =  600

Option 7
1st - 30.0% =  3,000
2nd - 20.0% =  2,000
3rd - 12.0% =  1,200
4th - 10.0% =  1,000
5th -  8.0% =  800

Option 8
1st - 30.0% =  3,000
2nd - 20.0% =  2,000
3rd - 12.5% =  1,250
4th -  9.5% =  950
5th -  8.0% =  800

Not making any promises about changes as a result, but the more we know about the collective wishes of a broad spectrum of players the better we are able to improve our product.

I only got one vote, I thought you were supposed to get 4.

No problem with the poll or the discussion, but I think no matter what structured payout you have some players will always want to chop. Especially at Notts. For the following reasons:

1. Afraid to play short handed/inexperienced at short handed.

2. Unable to understand chip equity, thereby often giving up a larger slice of the pool.

Not saying I am against deals per se but if I am lucky to be in a good position 3 or 4 handed I just will not chop. Obviously this means I favour the 40/20/10 payout for 1/2/3.  :)

Trouble is Simon, when you get 4 handed and refuse the chop you become a target for the rest of the players, sometimes suffering some 'same village' team play. I've had to battle through that 3 times at notts, getting 1st,2nd and 3rd on different occasions where I felt as soon as I'd refused the deal it became 3v1

Only four people have won a competition outright at nottingham this year. In 92 tournaments, redsimon is one of those four. (It has actually been played to a conclusion 5 times... one of the others has won outright twice)

think I heard you say before. Amazing isnt it. That's why my Ideal in the other stream included a earlier start time and a policy of no chopping at the table. I forgot to say 30 min clock too, as we're starting early

option 3 is the most similar to the one we use in sheffield except 11.5 and 17.5% as opposed to 11 and 18%
seems to work ok and we do get comps playing to a finish , not all the time i admit but we have had more than 2 lol

craig

That's an incredible statistic.

Was this mainly chip counts or agreed deals between players??

And just out of interest, how many players are normally left when deals are made?

My guess would be 3, but I think it would help with the poll if we knew the actual stat.

Was this mainly chip counts or agreed deals between players??
i am still analysing the statistics but a more in depth analysis will follow
(its bound to be quite some essay though)

To be honest nightfly and those concerned with Notts affairs, i believe there are several reasons why comps are not played to a conclusion more often. I prefer comps to be played to a conclusion but the following reasons dictate that most people often don't want to.

1. The blinds get too high relative to the players chip stacks so a deal is cut to avoid it becoming a one hand crap shoot (e.g. with the blinds at 5-10K 4 handed, the average chip stack can often be 100K, which means you are average but only have 10 big blinds and with the button coming to you every four hands, you CANT play properly so often a deal is cut).

2. There is often a couple of people from the same village who have colluded from 2 tables out anyway and will deliberately avoid each other and attack the non-villager in a hope to oust them from the table so all the money goes back to their village.

3. The competitions start too late so even if a deal isnt done it will invariably go to a chip count, which goes down as a non-concluded tourney. I have 3 times this year been involved in a chip count (twice when I had the chip lead), I may have gone on to bust out 4th or 5th but I may have gone on and won - we will never know.

Resolutions.
1. Cap the blinds at 3-6 or 4-8K
2. Start 1.5 hours earlier
3. Increase clock to 25 minutes
4. Chop the bollocks off of the colluders and make them play a home game in their own village if thats how they want to play.

This is strictly my opinion, please feel free to flame me down or blow smoke up my arse accordingly, but I strongly believe these changes would work. Obviously point 4 is tongue in cheek but I hate collusion and anti-competitive behaviour (me and my dad or my granddad tikay dont do it so why should they be allowed?!)

Last world series there were about 2500 players. (If I remember correctly) Guy in 2nd got 3.5 mil, Mr Fossilman won 5 mil. Out of all those players, for 1 place to be worth 1.5 mil seems excessive. Did 1st really play that much better than 2nd?

IMHO, the gap in general between 1st and 2nd is way too big, especially when considering the potential swings in heads-up play. closing the gap should result in players being less scared about being knocked out and more reluctant to make deals. It wouldn't solve the problem all together, but it would be a start.

I think the current response to the poll echos people's thoughts on the high percentages allocated to 1st position.

I agree whole-heartedly. Well said.  8)

I also agree with snoopy here and maybe should have added this to my post. The gap between first and second is at present too large which also encourages deals especially between the villagers and those that are not accustomed to the latter stages of a tourney and just want a good amount of money to plunder away in 30 minutes on the wheel of mis-fortue.

love the post greg. that about sums up Nottingham final tables. So what are we asking for?
730 / 8pm start.
25/30 minute clock.
cap blinds at 3000/6000 or 4000/8000
introduce juice and get house dealers
I think a previous stream suggested a variety of formats too such as a couple of freezeouts or what about some NL?

Don't get me wrong though, I love going to Nottingham Gala and I know Rob wants the best for it.

Hi,

I heard that many of the big game organisors were seriously considering making the cutting pf deals by players on the final table illegal.

Surely this would be the best way to deal with it.

Yes, sure it can end in a crap shoot, but isn't that going to be the same in any game in any town.

At the end of the day, for poker to become completely mainstream and rid itself of this "seedy back room gambling" image, then proper rules and procedures must be introduced to ban these kind of deals.

It certainly makes for terrible TV watching players negotiate during a hand.

I can't imagine the likes of two tennis players meeting at the net to discuss sharing the prize money!!

My tuppennies worth.

Rich

This rule has been applied in the Grosvenor Walsall casino.

Unfortunately, although they can force people to play out a tournament, they can't stop them doing deals away from the table. Therefore, players agree on a deal and then just finish the comp in a crapshoot style.

yes but that can only happen if all parties agree

if it did become illegal, it then protects against newbie being bullied into a Chop!

I don't see how it changes anything from deals being legal, apart from introducing the risk of the "winner" taking the money and running.

If tennis players were playing for their own money, maybe things would be different.

What gives cardrooms the right to tell the players how to divide up their own money?

 ???

All parties need to agree whether the casino allows deals or not.

A hit and run, as another member highlighted, would be my concern.

IMHO, impossible to stop deals, or to make players play to a finish, they could all go all in every hand after the deal has been done. The solution is to use a structure that makes deals unnecassary/unlikley

we cap the blinds at 3000-6000 or 4000-8000 depending on the chips in play festival events will obviously go higher but not much

Deals are not illegal, what the ruling is is that the casino will only pay out the advertised pay structure and you can't do deals at the table.
We actually did a deal at the table, dealer couldn't do anything as you have 2 mins to dwell.
Thing is you then have to each get your money then pool it and chop it up.
All it is now is inconvenient for us.
Ian

as stated before
How can a casino possibly ban deals its not the casinos money and surely it is up to the players to decide if they wish to split the money
However much i would like to see every comp played out the lure of a good deal to the shorter stack is often too much

AS you all keep stating the money is yours.

Try convincing certain people of that. I keep repeating it but certain people believe it isn't your money until you win it. Therefore, If you finish in 4th that is what you get paid. I'm not a great believer in deals away from the tables, and would prefer to hear what is said and what is going on. I'd rather know someone has said No and is being played against by the others, and be able to do something about it, rather than guessing what has gone on in the toilet.

Grosvenor introduced the "All competitions must be played to a conclusion" rule, to try to educate players who always do deals that they shouldn't. They were also meant to try to flatten the payout structure to try to promote games finishing. Because at the end of the day with television getting involved it doesn't help the image any if they do cut deals.

I for one know that they need flattening more here, and will be doing so in the not to distant future.

Yogi

Yogi,
I hope that you will find the results of this poll useful. i must say that the votes so far seem to indicate that your current structure (2) and mine (4) are not very high in the popularity stakes.

I think I'm the one who voted for (4)...but I only play once in a blue moon  :D

people say "it's our money" like we're all in it together. It's not my money, it's theirs. They being my 100 opponents. I'm afrter a fair payout structure of their money based on my performance on the night. I'f I've performed better than the others at the final table I want to be rewarded fairly for that and I when deals are discussed I'm pretty sure my opponent rarely have my interests at heart. I will NEVER do a deal that involves chopping it away from the table. I've met some decent blokes at the tables but not as many as I've met scum bags

Harsh, but fair.

 ;)

I see it the other way Adam, Ive met some scumbags at the table, but not as many as Ive met decent blokes

I hope that more experience and travel gives me the same :)

I admit the number of decent guys I'm meeting is increasing, particularly the longer I'm involved with the Blondites I've met. when I'm raking it in with the T-Shirt business (news on that will follow) I can spend more time at the tables and get out and meet more of the good guys.

A great advert for Gala Notts though Adam  :-\
I'll get my coat............

does sound a bit like that doesn't it. there's only probably around 25% I'd consider unsavoury characters. Then theres around 10%/15% that are good'uns then there's people I either don't know enough to have an opinion of or I know are only passing through.

I didn't mean to make it sound like it was full of scumbags I still don't consider myself as part of an "us" with most though

Ok, here as promised is a statistics overload which will show the different types of outcomes tournaments have, and more importantly what the overall effect of these outcomes is on the actual percentages by position compared to the proposed (official) percentages by position.

The statistics are for 92 competitions, mostly Pot-Limit Re-buys, from this year.
The official Prize structure pays 10 as follows:

1st  40%
2nd  20%
3rd - 10%
4th - 7.5%
5th - 6%
6th - 5%
7th - 4%
8th - 3%
9th - 2.5%
10th - 2%

Competitions with more than 10 prizes have only included the top 10. It should be noted that any decision by the remaining players to pay a saver for 11th or 12th usually comes off the top prize. This has the effect of increasing some of the lower placings to more than the official % payout (as only the money paid to the last 10 has been analysed.)

Method of Conclusion of 92 Tournaments

Outright winner:- 5 or 5.4%
Deals Made:-    63 or 68.5%
Chip Count:-     24 or 26.1%

Of The 63 Tournaments which ended in deals:

19 were made with 2 players remaining (21% of comps)
17 were made with 3 remaining (18%)
19 with four remaining (21%)
7 with 5 remaining (8%)
And amazingly
1 with 6 remaining (1%)

Of the 24 which ended in a chip count:

6 were 2 player chip counts (7%)
4 were 3 player chip counts (4%)
7 were 4 player chip counts (8%)
4 were 5 player chip counts (4%)
1 was a 6 player affair (1%)
And 2 were 7 player jobbies (Borrowed this word from tikays poker glossary) (2%)

Staying with chip counts for a moment:
Any competition which still has 7 players remaining when it ends is either the result of extremely tight play, or it is a tournament structure issue.

670,000 points in play blinds @ 5000/10,000
7 players average stack = 96K = 9.5 Big Blinds

An earlier start time with more time to play would certainly help. BUT when you have time constraints a tournament must be structured so that it has a more than reasonable chance of finishing within a set timescale. In this instance the capping of blinds at 3K/6K is not a solution.

The net effect of Chip Counts (whether 2,3, 4 or more players are involved) on the payouts per position is as follows:

1st  27.9%
2nd  20.3%
3rd - 14.5%
4th - 11.0%
5th - 8.1%
6th - 5.9%
7th - 4.6
8th - 3%
9th - 2.5%
10th - 2%

Note That 2nd Prize is the only one close to the official mark!

An alternative to a looming chip count is to decide upon a deal.

The interesting thing about deals is the different variety of deals proposed by all manner of different players. They are not always proposed by the same people. In fact in the 63 competitions where deals have been made 112 different players have had a go at refining and restructuring the payouts to suit their own ends.

So do these deals create a better payout structure than chip counts?
Can we assume that the amount paid out in deals is the collective subconscious desired payout structure of 112 players?

 The answers to these questions will be found in my second essay on the subject. But for now Ill leave it with you as food for thought.

Dont know about anyone else Nightfly, but I find these statistics facinating, and where else would we get to see them, well done and thanks

excellent Rob!
just goes to show that 40% for first is probably both undesirable and unachievable in most comps - so why not reduce it down to 30% and overall flatten the structure in order to encourage play.  However as long as the blinds remain so high and the clock so fast you will still get (IMO) 3 and 4 way deals.

good stats though - look forward to more

An excellent and eye-opening analysis.

Nottm. Gala is lucky to have someone who is so interested in the job at hand.

If only they would give you dealers and allow the competitions to start earlier.

I am sure that we would then have the best cardroom in the country.

K

Don't forget to get rid of the scumbags  ;D

Well give or take a cockroach or two. !

 :)

Glad you like the statistics guys...
was a little worried that you may find them dull and laborious to work through.

will happily provide some more.

these type of statistics are not really available anywhere else but they do show important features of the state of poker tournaments at the moment. i know that they only come from one club but i would be very surprised if it were not the picture elsewhere.

am preparing part two of my essay at the moment (really feels like a school project :-\) this focusses on the different types of deals done(but not so much on the reasons why)

Amending the Prize Structure?

JUST DO IT.

PS - Good work Rob.

Nightflys school project (Part 2)

The Nature of Deals:

Imagine that you have settled down to watch the Grand National. Youve just rushed back from the bookies where youve had a few each-way flutters. The race starts and for the first circuit of Aintree, horses are falling at fences left right and centre. Three quarters of the race is run and only five horses are still going. Suddenly they all stop, the jockeys dismount and start walking leisurely towards the finishing line, leading their horses and conversing all the while. They all cross the line together and inform the waiting official Weve agreed to split the Prize Money

This would hardly make for interesting viewing.

With the increasing incidence of televised poker events, deals are becoming less desirable. Who wants to watch a discussion about who could have what and why.
People who follow these events want to see a result.

People ask me most nights in the Card Room, Who won last night?
The answer more often than not is that Nobody actually won, but So-and-So took the most money

Why are so many deals done?

The prize structure probably has a lot to do with it.
Players want to see a big first prize, Casinos do too to some extent. It adds a little bit of sensationalism to the event.

In reality, very few players ever receive this prize. So shouldnt we be honest and make the payout structures reflect reality rather than some impossible dream.

There was a player the other day who felt that 1st prize should be 60% yet there he was down to last four discussing a money split. We could make 1st prize 60% but this player always makes deals so would he ever play for it? Probably not.

If 3,4 or 5 players are regularly altering the payouts at the business end of a tournament, we must take their alterations to be a version of what they would consider to be a just reward for the performance they have delivered.

So Many deals are done that they actually combine to make a brand new payout structure. One that has been forged and shaped by more than 100 players, amateurs and professionals, new players, old players. People with plenty of money, people who really could do with the money etc.

How does this new payout structure compare to the official one and how do deals fare against chip counts?

Read on and all will be revealed

Two Player Deals: 19 in 63 or 30% of deals
Official Payout Structure:
1st  40%
2nd  20%
3rd - 10%


As Snoopy1239 said earlier in this thread:

IMHO, the gap in general between 1st and 2nd is way too big, especially when considering the potential swings in heads-up play. closing the gap should result in players being less scared about being knocked out and more reluctant to make deals. It wouldn't solve the problem all together, but it would be a start.

This in a nutshell explains why deals are done at this point.
1st Prize is twice as much money as 2nd
For some, this risk is too great.

Deals between two players only fall into two categories

The Money is split equally (9 times out of 19)

Either because of similar stack size or same village
Leading to a structure as follows:

1st  30%
2nd  30%
3rd - 10%

Or

The money is split roughly proportionate to chips (10 times in 19)

Chip leader shows their benevolence by offering billy low stack a little more than 2nd prize to avoid playing endless heads-up where anything can change.

1st  35%
2nd  25%
3rd - 10%

Overall structure suggested by all two player deals

1st  33%
2nd  27%
3rd - 10%

2nd place gains at the expense of 1st

Three Player Deals: 17 in 63 or 27% of deals
Three player deals usually follow one of two types although the second type has 3 sub types

Proportionate split (Immediate end to play) 5 in 17
Chip leader shows their benevolence by offering billy medium stack a little more than 2nd prize and billy low stack a little more than 3rd

1st  29%
2nd  23%
3rd - 18%

There were no equal 3 way splits in the data!


12 in 17 Three way deals:
The other 3 player deals all start the same way and actually allow for play to continue (this is also the nature of many 4 and 5 way deals)

The players wish to continue playing but would like to make sure that their eventual reward is sufficient. Usually phrased as Everybody gets x and the winner takes the rest

Many people who go on to win these would actually claim to have won a competition. The deal changes things though they are playing with fully comprehensive insurance!

Either these conclude as stated (6 in 17)

1st  29%
2nd  20%
3rd - 20%

Or
Once a player is done the last two split (5 in 17)

1st  25%
2nd  25%
3rd - 20%
 
Or They end in a Chip Count (1 in 17)

1st  28%
2nd  24%
3rd - 18%

The overall effect of 3 way deals is
1st  28%
2nd  22.5%
3rd - 19%
4th - 7.5%
I could look at four and higher deals the same way but this is already getting longer than I had planned.

Four way deals (19 in 63) give a structure of

1st -    25.6%
2nd -    19.9%
3rd -    16.4%
4th -    15.0%
5th -    6.2%


Five Way (7 in 63) deals give a structure of
1st -    21.5%
2nd -    18.3%
3rd -    15.6%
4th -    14.7%
5th -    13.0%
6th -    5.1%
   
 And the 1 six way deal went as follows

1st -    18.8%
2nd -    16.2%
4th -    14.9%
3rd -    14.9%
5th -    13.6%
6th -    10.0%
7th -    4.0%


After all Deals are considered the Actual distribution of prizes per position in these 69 competitions (Decided upon by 112 individuals) was:

1st -    27.5%
2nd -    22.2%
3rd -    14.7%
4th -    10.9%
5th -    7.4%
6th -    5.5%
7th -    4.1%
8th -    3.1%
9th -    2.6%
10th -    2.1%
 Comparing this to the effect of Chip Counts

1st  27.9%
2nd  20.3%
3rd - 14.5%
4th - 11.0%
5th - 8.1%
6th - 5.9%
7th - 4.6
8th - 3%
9th - 2.5%
10th - 2%

The two outcomes are remarkably similar.

Do these represent a more realistic prize structure. Most of the time 1st position does not get 30%.

Are these Percentages not closer to those in Option 5 of the poll than any of the others?

Incorporating all results the actual breakdown per position of over 776,000
Is as follows

1st -   218,285.00   - 28.1%
2nd -   170,435.00   - 22.0%
3rd -   107,960.00   - 13.9%
4th -    83,370.00   - 10.7%
5th -    59,260.00   - 7.6%
6th -    43,600.00   - 5.6%
7th -    33,305.00   - 4.3%
8th -    23,835.00   - 3.1%
9th -    19,945.00   - 2.6%
10th -    16,135.00   - 2.1%

Wow. Do you have Red Bull on tap?

absolutely fascinating! - you should get a pay rise! - how does 5.25 an hour sound?  :)

Rob, this looks to me along with the poll so far like you have your answer with which to either just go ahead and change it or go to the management with a proposal.

Great work, i look forward to seeing the new structure implemented shortly.

Great stuff Rob.

And it confirms what I said to start with - 28%-22% for 1st & 2nd is about right. The facts dont lie.

Dont dither - just do it!

The know-alls can argue all day - & they will - but the FACTS - so wonderfully & painstakingly set out by you - make the case. So move on to the next stage now - change them. Simple!

What a star. As already said, get it changed. anyone disputing it can be told that's what the payouts already are.

Worth a trial run at least.

Jolly good work!  ;D

I'm sure there's just a few more votes out there!