[jmda]

I have run quite a few tournaments and have gone from paying out too many to paying out what some might consider too few. 10 players or less 1st and 2nd only 65% 35%. 11 to 20 more 3 spots, 21 to 30 4 spots, 31 to 40 5 spots - have never had over 39 players but the trend would continue. The time I had 39 players was when I was still paying out too many and it was 7 spots - I think.

Interested in other's opinions.

[Q10 soooted]

Fairly relevant...and has a poll!: http://chiptalk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8990

[ky70]

I tried calculting the fairest scenerio to distribute the pot as the players increase. I tried not to take too much from any higher spot as number of payouts increased. Here is what I use (I'll probably change it next week)
4 or less - winner takes all
5 - 9 players - 1st = 67%, 2nd = 33%
10 players - 1st = 62%, 2nd = 28%, 3rd = 10% (money back)
11 - 15 players - 1st = 58%, 2nd = 27.5%, 3rd = 14.5%
16 - 20 players - 1st = 53%, 2nd = 24.95%, 3rd = 13.15%, 4th = 8.9%
21 - 25 players - 1st = 49.5%, 2nd = 23.45%, 3rd = 12.15%, 4th = 8.35%, 5th = 6.55%
26 - 30 players - 1st = 47.5%, 2nd = 22.3%, 3rd = 11.75%, 4th = 8%, 5th = 6.6%, 6th = 3.85%

[Lumpy]

Up to 12 we do 3 50%/30%/20%
13+ top 4 47%/27%/16%/10%

We rarely have more than 20 but I would add a 5th spot at some point in the 20's.

I do not like payouts that are severely weighted to pay 1st. Especially when there is a very large difference between 1st and second. Heads-up play requires a lot of skill, but it is also usually the one that gets lucky that wins so I like second to get rewarded fairly.

For our season finale we do a 20 person tournament with a 40/30/20/10 payout schedule.

[Dimes]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Up to 12 we do 3 50%/30%/20%
13+ top 4 47%/27%/16%/10%

We rarely have more than 20 but I would add a 5th spot at some point in the 20's.

I do not like payouts that are severely weighted to pay 1st. Especially when there is a very large difference between 1st and second.

I think a good rule of thumb is that the runner up gets around 60% of what the winner gets. This is exactly the case in your 50-30-20 payout, and very close in the 47-27-16-10 payout.

TT

[SpaceMonkey]

Similar to most responses:

<8 = top 2
8-12 = top 3
13+ = top 4

[seymour]

We generally only have 4-6 players, sometimes 8, in our games. And payout is for 1st only. Although I'd like to have 2nd get at least their buyin back, with 5 or 6 players anyway. Something I'll bring up this week, perhaps.

[DaveHNK]

I used to race bikes and there's something in cycling racing called a gambler's prime (pronounced preem). It's prize money given out on the next to the last lap of a race when there are short circuits (usually on the track or in a downtown race circuit of just a block or two). Anyway, it's usually smaller than winning the whole race, but bigger than most of the other places. You go for the gambler's prime, though, and you'll be toast in the final.

Anyway, also because cyclists are idiots, I'm getting together with some old teammates and we'll probably play poker -- we've joked about using a gambler's prime by setting payout of 65/10/25.

Would probably be fun with the group I'm playing with, but can't imagine it would catch on!

[Dimes]

Originally Posted by ky70

16 - 20 players - 1st = 53%, 2nd = 24.95%, 3rd = 13.15%, 4th = 8.9%
21 - 25 players - 1st = 49.5%, 2nd = 23.45%, 3rd = 12.15%, 4th = 8.35%, 5th = 6.55%
26 - 30 players - 1st = 47.5%, 2nd = 22.3%, 3rd = 11.75%, 4th = 8%, 5th = 6.6%, 6th = 3.85%

How did you come up with these awkward numbers (such as 24.95% and 6.55%)? For 16-20 players, wouldn't it be easier just to go with 53-25-13-9?

TT

[ky70]

Originally Posted by Dimes

How did you come up with these awkward numbers (such as 24.95% and 6.55%)? For 16-20 players, wouldn't it be easier just to go with 53-25-13-9?

TT

I did a calculation so that I could analyze what % each payout spot decreased as a new payout spot was being added. I selected perecentages that would not unevenly penalize any previous pay out spots as the percentages decrease in order to add a new spot.

In addition, I made sure that the new pay out spot would get a little more than they're buy-in but I also made sure that when a new pay out spot was being added, that the previous pay out spots would not take a significant step back in pay when we're 1 player into the next pay out level and that when we're 2 players into the next pay out level that the previous spots get more than they did when it was at the previous pay out level with 1 less payout spot. I'm confused after typing that but here's how it looks. If we look at my pay out for structure 11 - 15 players...I pay out 3 spots. If there are 16 players I would pay out a 4th spot. Pay out spots 1,2 & 3 would get slightly less money with 16 people (1 player into next pay out level) than they would with 15 people (because a 4th spot is paid out with 16 guys). But, I make sure that with 17 players (2 players into next payout level), pay out spots 1, 2 & 3 get more than they would have with 15 people.

Here's an example of the above with a 30 dollar buy in:
15 people = $450 pot
1st place = $261
2nd place =$124
3rd place =$65

16 people = $480 pot
1st place = $254 ($7 under 15 player payout due to new pay out spot)
2nd place =$120 ($4 under 15 player payout due to new pay out spot)
3rd place =$63 ($2 under 15 player payout due to new pay out spot)
4th place =$43

17 people = $510 pot
1st place = $270 ($9 increase over 15 player pay out)
2nd place =$127 ($3 increase over 15 player pay out)
3rd place =$67 ($2 increase over 15 player pay out)
4th place =$45

I know it may not be "necessary" to look at the payout structure in such detail, but I enjoy analyzing stuff like this in my spare time.