Poll: DTD Payout Structures. Your votes please

[TightEnd]

After good feedback on re-entries, blonde members are requested to vote in the poll above, and also post/give opinions on DTD Payout Structures

Poll Options are as follows:

1  Keep existing DTD Payout structure (i.e. min cash 1.5x buy-in and pay 10% field of field paid)

2  Flatten payouts, specifically 1st and 2nd to enable higher min cash (2x buy-in)

3  Flatten payouts MORE to enable BOTH higher min cash (2x buy-in) AND pay higher % of field (e.g. pay 12%)


Thanks

[Junior Senior]

Good idea for a poll. What sort of sample size is needed and percentage of preference for an option is needed to affect a change by DTD. I presume Rob and Simon have asked for these polls to be created?

[TightEnd]

Good idea for a poll. What sort of sample size is needed and percentage of preference for an option is needed to affect a change by DTD. I presume Rob and Simon have asked for these polls to be created?

Yes.

I don't know sample sizes and what margins are needed

I do know that they read all opinions, and its an important factor in decisions they are contemplating

Clearly we as a group can provide high quality feedback from a whole range of different sorts of players.....

[AndrewT]

What's the existing DTD policy on deals?

[TightEnd]

What's the existing DTD policy on deals?

If the GTD prize pool exceeds £50,000 then No deals permitted

Under that, chip count deals are permitted


My own personal contention, coming from someone who watches and reports on a lot of the finals, is the combination of no deals in the bigger tournaments plus top heavy payouts produces stodgy laddering play

However, what the players think matters, not me!

[George2Loose]

Kepp as is pls

[bobAlike]

Kepp as is pls

This

[Da Bookie]

Not got a big opinion either way to be honest on this. I think paying no more than 10% of the field is right regardless of how you carve it up.

[smashedagain]

I hate the idea of paying more players but would like to see the min cash increased in 2 day+ events to cover costs of at least 1 nights hotel costs. This really applies to the £150 as £300/£500 just about covers expenses.

[Junior Senior]

I hate the idea of paying more players but would like to see the min cash increased in 2 day+ events to cover costs of at least 1 nights hotel costs. This really applies to the £150 as £300/£500 just about covers expenses.

Me too. Whilst I quite often manage to only muster a min cash I don't want to see the number of prizes increased as 10% is easily enough I do however think that a min cash should be higher, especially when players have travelled, stayed over or have had to drive back for a second or third day. No need to increase min cash on one day events IMO

[welsh1980]

Imo 10% of the field payed is fine, but I do believe that min cash should be increased as it covers costs.
I also believe that flattening out the pay structure will increase play, therefore earlier finishes (hopefully).

[Eso Kral]

Kepp as is pls

[skolsuper]

It needs flattening for reasons I think I've posted before in another thread. This is not gonna be a fashionable view, but having thought about it some more I think paying a few more players will be better for everyone too. I snap-voted for the middle option tho, dunno if I can change it.

[TightEnd]

It needs flattening for reasons I think I've posted before in another thread. This is not gonna be a fashionable view, but having thought about it some more I think paying a few more players will be better for everyone too. I snap-voted for the middle option tho, dunno if I can change it.

James I remember that post, but couldn't find it

Any idea where it was posted?

ty

[Karabiner]

When I discussed this subject with Simon a few months ago when the "deal or no deal" thread was current he was adamant that the top prize would not be reduced under any circumstances. He also said that he had not seen skolsuper's excellent post in that thread detailing the flatter payout structures as used in GUKPT events.

Unless his stance has altered this whole discussion might well be redundant.