Are tournament prizes fair?

[oneloy]

It seems to me that the structure of prizes is divided by faith. And actually what's the problem? Do not like it, do not play it)

 

[Vp888]

Yes if you play good

 

[AshK44]

I think some prizes are better than others. It does suck when you lose just before the money though.

 

[Mateo]

I definitely agree that it seems crazy that so much of the prize pool goes to the lower end, but it is a good distribution of players getting paid. If there were too many fewer people getting paid the tournaments just aren't worth it (e.g. some freerolls with 8000 people and top 50 pay)

 

[kbuinowski]

some times i don't think prizes are fair

i play on ACR and there ten dollar free rolls the levels are ten min. long which i think they should be 5 min levels. and allow 1 five min. for late registration.

 

[ZenGreen]

Id prefer less payouts and higher cashes. Sometimes wish they would just pay the final or final 2 tables, to prevent all the bubble stalling, and all cashes should be at least double the buyin, not a few dollars more than the buyin

 

[titiduru]

Many times I've played a tournament with lot of players (3.000 - 5000) and after 3-4 hours I finished between 20 and 30 place and the prizes are small enough for so many hours!! Even in 15th place it's not something big comparing to the final table which is one winning hand far.. e.g you play a 3.30$ with 3000 players and you get 15 place which gives you 31$ but if you had won your final hand you would double and wait 30 more minutes and get 7th place which gives you 140$.. These are real prizes from today's "big 3.30" (pokerstars).. Is there any rule on how prizes are calculated and is it the same on other poker-sites?

My opinion is that it would be better if less players were paid but with higher prizes... There is no point giving 6$ to places 500-600 (600$ total) and 7$ to places 400-500 (700$), you don't play a 3,30$ MTT just to double your buy-in (better to play a sit&go with much better chances to earn 6$), so in my opinion it would be better to add this 1300$ to the higher positions...

Your opinion is based on personal preference and has nothing to do with the prize distribution being fair or not. The distribution is fair as long as all the players are treated equally, and they have the same chance of winning the prizes.

 

[Peter Jankowski]

I believe the MTT payouts are far to top heavy, especially in very large MTT. It's not all skill and a lot of luck to win one. Mike Caro is wrong that MTT should pay even more top heavy, that will only lose entrants. The payout structure needs to be spread more evenly. Even the wsop went to paying 15% of entrants with a very, slightly more flatten payout.

 

[DUSTIN BRYAN]

some sites are more top heavy than others. some sites pay out a higher percentage of the entrants than others. if you are a tighter player who is good at min cashing look for a site that pays a larger percentage of the entrants. if you are very aggressive and tend to bust early or build a stack look for a site that pays out higher to the top finishers

 

[bekel285]

It is fair but playing mtts with thousands of entrants like on pokerstars can be a bit of a waste of time as your unlikely to final table often. Smaller field mtts seem far more profitable to me.

 

[DSUMMER10]

I agree with a preliminary structure of MTT tournaments, as the best prizes are among the first placed. Otherwise, everyone would be happy to be in their 20's instead of trying a final table.

 

[amine duc]

I agree with you me too i dont like that

 

[mayoroftittycity]

Definitely a fan of cutting back on payouts, especially at the lower levels

 

[ScottieDuncan]

Definitely agree!!!

 

[Bozovicdj]

you dont understand how its work. i cant find any 27$ mtts with so many players, but have another example - Big $27, 8k guarante. min players: 3, max: 15'000. lets take it with max players amount (24,55$ pool, 2,45$ to PS) 24,55$ X 15'000 players = 368'250$, where 2'924 (19%) ppl are cashed! for first you get 10,4% (almost 38k), 2nd - 7%, 3rd - 4,9%, 4th - 3,4%, 5th - 2,3%, 6th - 1,6%, 7th - 1,1%, 8th - 0,7%, 9th - 0,5% (1,8k) = Final tabel get 31% of all money! the other 69% must be distributed between the rest 2915 ppls) 2924 place - 0,01% 36$
in my example youd get 184$ for 190 place, its 0,05%

20% of players are cashed! 20-30% of pool is to FT! min.10%-30% is for 1st place
thats the point of this game, not to take 278 place and make ITM but win and get much more than other.

returning to the question, yes thats fair!

Definitely agree on this, it is fair. The real point of playing a tournament is not to just get in the money, it is really about getting to the FT or near it, where the prizes are good. As for the ratios, just think about WSOP main event with the buy-in of 10k$. First to bust after the bubble gets around 17k$. If you look at some Hot or Big MTT on pokerstars, you will see similar payouts all the way to the FT.

 

[Pwohar43]

Fair

U must be a good player if you can do those calculations

 

[Parkkev]

It is better to be paid although with double buyin if it is badbeat. I think its not better for all. If you want big prizes so play big buyins and you will win more

 

[Pwohar43]

Fair

More important is are they enough to to get players to care when they play otherwise u get what I call the Allen idiots

 

[Pwohar43]

I hadn't looked at this the way u put it, but good point

 

[ssory83]

Yes. I think the awards are right. Somewhere in 10% of the enrolled enter the prizes. You have to fight for the final table. There is the beating for the big prizes.

 

[Manifestor]

I also think that it's better to make the difference between places not so great, since getting to the prize is already a huge bingo, not your skill.

 

[Poker Orifice]

Exactly, the big money is for big players, the small money you can reach by sitting out and waiting others to fail trying to get the big money. Prize distribution is, what it is. Check it out before, then you won't be disappointed later.:heeeellll:rock:

yah but are you sure... are you sure.... are you sure???




Personally I prefer tournaments that have a Top 10% payout structure. However, when I was newer to playing poker tournaments I actually preferred the Top 20% payout structure (I enjoyed getting into the money no matter how small... it was exciting!).


For some of the posters suggesting that it's not worth it to play small buyin tourney and then to win only small prize... it is all relative people! If you're paying $1 to enter & then win $10, you've just made 10x on your money. If you paid $500 to enter & then won $5,000. It is the very same thing.
Also, if you are suggesting it's impossible (or very difficult) to actually win any money in low buyin tournaments then I'd suggest to you that it will be very easy to lose LOTS of money by playing larger buyin tournaments.


Solution: Play more tournaments at the same time. Practice practice practice... til' you can play 'optimally' while playing 4 tournaments at the same time (& then6... then 8... then 10... etc.).


Another option: play smaller field tournaments ie. 100 entrants. Or play 45-man SNG's.

 

[hugh blair]

A lot of tournaments are winner takes all for satellites ect came second in satellites to big main events playing hours got nada but yes top money is always top positions which is right good luck

 

[playinggameswithu]

I really think that min cash that are less than 2.25x the buy in total should be abolished and replaced with gift packages like Cardroom clothes,steakhouse giftcards,money clip, card protector, branded head phones as a package. Why play for 8 hours just to 1.5x cash when you could play a cash game?

 

[corieaddison]

I agree with this thought about the tourney prizes. Sometimes it does feel like you dont get paid enough for such a long tourney. Possibly they could redistribute the final table money dont a little but on the other hand playing a $3 and making 10x your money is very good. These are the stakes I play as well and do feel the pain... I like jumping up sometimes to $10 tourneys.... 10x that is 100 which is nice. Those lower stakes are just such a grind.