Prize Structure - Bigger Prizes fewer players or Smaller Prizes more players

I was looking at the prizes offered at some of the MTT's and was wondering what the general preference was. Do people prefer tourneys that offer larger prizes to say the top 1% of the field, or smaller prizes to 20% of the field.

I look for the most places paid. My ideal is probably the Bodog beginner tournies, where ten people play and five are paid out. But that's because I'm a bad player.

I think a healthy balance is good. I don't really see the point in playing for close to 2 hrs to get your buy in +10% back (ofc playing for 2hrs to get nothing is even worse), but i also wouldn't want to have to finish top 20 in a 1k person MTT every time just to cash. Maybe like 5-7% cashing instead of the 10% that it seems like most do. The only thing i really have a problem with is the 5-10% range where ppl get like 100-200% of the buy in. Nobody really plays MTTs to make 5-10$ after 2 hrs...better off playing SnGs if you want to reduce variance in tourns.

I guess it depends on how you play. If you are one who plays to cash rather than someone who always plays to win (ok everyone plays to win, but when it gets close to the $$ many players get ultra tight and just try to hang on for as long as possible to move up the placing)

Well put. I think the best answer is to have variance in structure. Offer both high number of pay outs w/low payouts and low number of payouts with high payouts. Which ever one appeals to you most is the winner

When I final table, I like larger payouts to fewer spots. When I bubble, I'd like smaller payouts to more places.

Im in Vegas right now playing in the various tournaments in town. The variance in structure is amazing. At the Nugget for their tournament the top is heavy where all the money goes to first place. At Binions in their annual Classic Tournament its more spread out. Even though it is the same buy in you get more money for hitting the top 9. So hitting final table is worth the time and effort. I dont like the top heavy structure. It is so hard and arduous getting to that final table that you should be compensated more than a pittance.

15% is about right for me

I've come to the realisation that i hate the MTTs on Stars. 20% payout means you can play for hours, make the money and still only double your buy in. They're way too top heavy for my liking.

Par example. . I played for near enough five hours the other day in a $2.50 buy in and, while finishing 15th out of a field of over 2000, only won $30. It's good comparative to the buy in, but as far as an hourly rate goes, it's pretty dire.

You really need to final table if you want to make a good return, and it's just too hard to do consistently to be profitable in the long run. First place awarded $830 by the way, so you can see how top heavy it is.

I'd rather play higher buy in tournaments with a much smaller field, i've decided.

I addressed this issue after last week's FullTilt (or was it Ultimatebet?) CardsChat freeroll. There were about a thousand players. It paid the top 99 (about 10%), but starting pay was 34 cents. I think it's kind of silly to play for a couple hours for thirty-four cents. One of the mods came on and said CardsChat tried to get a different payout structure, but the poker sites apparently won't allow custom structures.

Then a handful of people wrote in, most of whom said 34 cents was fine to them - it could start them on the road to riches, or maybe it was just the thrill of cashing.

Top place paid $45 out of - I think - a $200 prize pool.

So you'll get a mix of opinions about this. My goal is to win or at least make the final table. If I can do that, then I'd like bigger money. If I finish 99th, 34 cents is not much of a thrill. I'd just as soon forgo it and give it to those who outplayed me that day.

Doesn't really matter what we think, though. Sounds like it's a done deal on whatever site we play on.

G the W

Its a freeroll you need to get loose change to build your BR

I like the $2.20 satellites to the Sunday $100k. The top 6/36 players get $11T, and 7th gets a little cash. The ever-increasing pize money at the end of regular tournaments is coupled with the ever-increasing blinds, which makes luck a much bigger factor. So I like the money from the higher end to be less. Less variance.

I also think that prize money should start at three or four times your buy-in. So instead of 20% cashing, 10% is better. And I prefer the money left to not be as top heavy.

remember: you should not be playing MTTs for the hourly rate

please expound.

I think he's referring to the high degree of variance in MTTs versus, say, sit-n-goes. In other words, he dosen't believe that you should look at ROI from an MTT in hourly rate terms, you should look at MTTs as an opportunity to take a big payout if you go deep in them once in a while.

^^

I prefer the higher percentage of pay-outs because I am not good enough to consistently get to a final table. I always want to, but I just seem to screw up before I can get to the promised land.

i haven't decided i have tried so many things to many times. i hear the consensus (which I overwhelmingly agree with) that prizes are too top heavy. sure i've placed high in a few MTTs which is beyond fantastic, but say a recent one I placed like 19/360 and busted on a bad beat preflop... ended up turning my $5 into $12.60. lame. 1st place paying out like 500.

satellites semi-eliminate this problem if you look at it all as prize money and not satellite entry (i.e. $T). The problem with this is that most of the satty tournaments are also top heavy such as the $3 sunday million ones and 80% of the others... My favorite one - because it is the easiest tournament on the internet - are those $2.20 100k sattys someone mentioned earlier were 7/36 cash w/ mostly even prizes. I just wish there were slightly higher levels of this i.e. a $5.50 w/ 7/36s and $10s etc.. $2.20 is just so puny i have a hard time doing these frequently sometimes.