Does this payout schedule seem right?

[blkmoney12]

I've been playing on the WSOP.com Pennsylvania recently and jumped into the $100 buyin Signature Event #38 $10K Guaranteed just a few days ago. As I was still in the game and once we got to the money, I was a bit amazed at the payouts. The minimum cash won in 21st place was only $117 which barely covered their buyin. I realize the payouts are usually quite top heavy but to me this seems a bit ridiculous to min cash and barely make anything back. I did contact WSOP.com Pennsylvania and expressed my disappointment with this payout structure (no response as of yet).

I've included screenshots of that particular payout schedule. Does anyone else believe the payout structure is a bit skewed?

__________________

 

[mtl mile end]

Meh, 116 Buy Ins, 18.1% (21 players) paid - a little higher than I'd expect, but don't know the site, and there were rebuys.
22.3% to the winner, again, maybe a little high.

The above two factors would contribute to a flatter payout schedule at the lower end, climbing steeply at the higher end. This leads to a small min cash. If you rebought and min cashed, you would be very disappointed. That's pretty normal.

 

[ph_il]

this is how it is for almost all standard mtts. it's a bit different for bounty mtts since half the prize pool is on the table in forms of bounties, it's different for satellite mtts since they pay all the same prize (usually) and it's different for big mtt events like a $1 buy-in $5M gtd prize and min-cash is $10 (as an extreme example).

this is why a lot of (winning) players say to not play for just a min-cash because you're not making enough profit in the long term. especially given an average 20-25% itm finish for mtts, most players that only min-cash are break-even at best and a lot of players are in the red because of it.

what you posted looks completely standard.

 

[smerald]

The min. cash seems a bit on the low end but it does happen and is normal. I think it happens when the amount of people in a tournament increases leading to jump to the next threshold of ITM (for example from 18 to 21 paid). I imagine if a few less people joined then 18 would pay out at a much higher rate.

 

[henriquemaduro]

I've been playing on the WSOP.com Pennsylvania recently and jumped into the $100 buyin Signature Event #38 $10K Guaranteed just a few days ago. As I was still in the game and once we got to the money, I was a bit amazed at the payouts. The minimum cash won in 21st place was only $117 which barely covered their buyin. I realize the payouts are usually quite top heavy but to me this seems a bit ridiculous to min cash and barely make anything back. I did contact WSOP.com Pennsylvania and expressed my disappointment with this payout structure (no response as of yet).

I've included screenshots of that particular payout schedule. Does anyone else believe the payout structure is a bit skewed?

__________________

Check the prize structure to see all the % at the lobby before enter a torunament to dont get mad. But always the last positions ITM pays a little more than the buy in, and the big money only at final positions.

 

[fundiver199]

There is no "correct" way to construct a payout structure. As long as the site keep its promises regarding the guarantied price pool, and how much of each buyin they keep, then its all good. And if for whatever reason we dont like a particular tournament, then we just dont play it

 

[Alizona]

This is why tournaments used to only pay 10% of the field, because paying a higher percentage (such as the 21% of the field getting paid here) means (a) first place payout is less, and (b) min-cashing also pays less.

However, from the site's perspective, they desire strongly to NOT let the very best poker players scoop up the big majority of the prize pool payouts. When this happens, a very few players are "winners" over the long term, while the vast majority of players end up being losers overall... and this, in turn, means those vast majority of the site's player base eventually just lose interest and quit playing on the site.

So, the response from poker sites was to increase the percentage of players paid. This results in a larger percentage of their player pool losing less in the long term. Oh they're not winning MORE, because as I said earlier, both the top-end payout for winning is less, AND the bottom-end min-cash payout is also less... but what changes is the player's PERCEPTION. Losing players love min-cashing because it gives them a sense of success and accomplishment. This is what poker sites realized, and why they prefer to "spread the prize pool over a larger percentage of the field".

The end results is that losing players are happier, but winning players are less happy than before, because they earn less from their best tournament results. But sites really don't want winning players who scoop up "more than their fair share" of prize payouts. Sites DO want to keep their losing players more happy, and this is why the trend is always "higher percentage of the field paid" and "lower payouts for each finish position". It sux for good players, but this is how it is, and why. Hope this helps, my opinions obv.

 

[Alex70793]

Yes, indeed, with a buy-in of $ 100, the payout in the tournament when getting into the money is only $ 117, this is not enough.
For example, at pokerstars in exactly the same tournament, the payout when hitting the money would be at least $ 160, and maybe even $ 180, something like this.

 

[pierceisgod]

The tournament may have hit a threshold at however many players where the amount of players getting paid is increased, say it only paid 18 and had a couple less players min cash might be a little bit higher. I think the tourney is pretty top heavy the thing is most people are never playing for min cash if that's a concern its probably suboptimal, as you get so many more buy-ins at the top.

 

[danydidi]

Didn't find something wrong in it .seems very normal, most of the sites have approx the same payroll

 

[alien666dj]

There is nothing unusual about such payments. After all, the poker room has to make money somehow.