Higher & Less Payouts -OR- Lower & More Payouts?

[Mortis]

In a poker tournament, do you prefer there to be Higher & Less Payouts? Say, 10% of the field gets paid, the winner gets normally a higher payout as do the rest of the field as opposed to Lower & More Payouts with 15% of the field getting paid? 15% of the field would get paid less, because the money is spread out more. 15% seems to be about what some of the big tourneys pay out. Or at least right around 15%.

 

[Mortis]

I am predicting that the 15% payout will be favorable in this poll, but personally, I like a 10% payout structure with those who cash getting more $$$.

 

[Dejana]

Hmm, I like higher & less payouts, I'm fine with a 10% payout - even 5%...

 

[Mortis]

I see the positives and negatives of both. I think more payouts keeps more people interested in the game. But less payouts would be better for those who cash (obviously), not just with the higher payouts, but for tax reasons as well. And it's a better bankroll builder than min cashing and practically just winning your buy-in back at the lowest cashing levels.

 

[Tero]

I have finally got rid of my min-cash mentality so it sucks to have my final table winning diluted. Less is more

 

[Luvepoker]

Having played live for both levels I won't deny I think it's better at the 15% area. While its great when we win sometime just getting into the money is vital for some players. I also think its good as we get some of the bad players some money to keep coming back. If it became to hard to get something players may not come back.

 

[TeUnit]

Typically the more you have a skill advantage the more you should prefer paying fewer players.

However, for forum games I think its better to pay more players, so more players have a chance to cash. The more players cash the more likely they are to continue to be active members of the forum.

 

[fundiver199]

With less payouts dry runs are longer, which tend to be frustrating even for long term winning players. And for that reason I definitely think, a structure with more payouts (like 15%) are better for the game.

 

[Marcwantstowin]

I voted for higher payouts and less being paid. I think this will help the competition, improving the standard. I can see that more players being paid possible will encourage more entries for any game, but then, if more enter then the 10% of payouts will be a larger amount of players. Swings and round-abouts I guess.

Normally I look at the cost of entry and then knowing it is going to change during late reg, but how much the payouts are paying when a game starts. Of course, this can vary game by game, whereas a $55.00 tournament will remain pretty stagnent, a $5.00 tournament will have a larger proportion of late registrants.

The main thing to remember is BR management.

 

[_420_420_]

Personally I am always going to prefer more payouts, in the long run its good for everyone. Sure, no one is playing to min-cash, but there's going to be less pressure on the bubble because the blinds will be lower before the bubble bursts. This may work in your advantage or just mean that the hand for hand is going to last longer maybe.

 

[theStarfish]

Personally I prefer more payouts, therefore I am happy to see that many tournaments pay more than 10 % of the field like they used to in earlier days

 

[mariale_1990]

I honestly think I don't pay much attention to that, I think I always focus more on whether the time invested is worth it with the possible profit, but if I analyze your question I think I prefer Higher & Less Payouts, it's even more exciting, more pressure and best prize

 

[CRStals]

I think the current status of the poll indicates how tough of a question this is.

I voted for more paid with less money. This reduces variance and could lead to more players being profitable in the long run. If you had such a sizeable skill advantage that it could overcome variance, less paid with more money makes sense. But to beat 86% of the field in a poker tournament, only to lose to a runner runner and bust short of the bubble happens.

I'd rather see more win in the long run

 

[thedarkman]

Apart from freerolls or free entries, about the only tournaments I play nowadays are bounty tournaments. On the old Crypto Logic Network these were called headhunters. You don't get so much for cashing but often you can win money or get back some money even if you don't cash, at least I do fairly regularly.

 

[pancho_1954]

As in any of the 2 options you have to make an effort to reach ITM, I choose the 1st option, I think better prizes motivate me more even though there are few awarded positions.