Flatter Payout Structures - "It's Your Money" have your say - Elimination Poll 1

[Nightfly]

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.

[Karabiner]

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

[redsimon]

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. 

[AdamM]

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

[Nightfly]

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.

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)

[AdamM]

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

[freak]

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

[snoopy1239]

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.

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)

That's an incredible statistic.

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

[snoopy1239]

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.

[Nightfly]

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)

[Junior Senior]

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?!)

[snoopy1239]

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.

[snoopy1239]

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?!)

I agree whole-heartedly. Well said. 

[Junior Senior]

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.

[AdamM]

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.