Tournament Prize Structures

[byronkincaid]

because they are National Amateur Championships

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.

[Nick Peters]

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.

[Ironside]

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

[MrMojoRisin]

because they are National Amateur Championships

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.

Sounds quite good to me. Is it televised?

[Doc Bok]

Can I PLEASE do the updates

 

[GlasgowBandit]

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!!

[M3boy]

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.

[ifm]

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

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.

[ifm]

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.

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!

[Ironside]

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

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.

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

[TightEnd]

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!

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
 

[phatomch]

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

GUKPT   STRUCTURE PAYS 1ST      32%             ONLY 2 CHOPPED
 

[tikay]

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.

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!

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.

[tikay]

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

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.

[Ironside]

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

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