Tournament Prize Structures

[TightEnd]

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.

[The_duke]

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)

[TightEnd]

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?

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

[jezza777]

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

[TightEnd]

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

[TightEnd]

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

not really, personally. Minimising variance is important

[snoopy1239]

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.

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.

NO, there will always be deals, rightfully so, it is OUR money, end of.

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

[Karabiner]

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.

[TightEnd]

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?

[TightEnd]

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 ?

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

[Ironside]

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

[RichEO]

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.

[dealerFROMhell]

All this fuss over a little 75 quid comp!

[RobS]

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.

[tikay]

All this fuss over a little 75 quid comp!

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.