What is the ideal poker tournament payout?

[Ruslan L]

In my opinion, the more paid places there are, the more chances a player has to get into the ITM. So such tournaments are more promising. If, for example, there are two absolutely identical tournaments, and one has 36 places and the other 9, then I will definitely choose the one with 36 places. Although, of course, this is not a guarantee of a good result, but at least there are more chances

 

[MK_]

I think 10 to 15% is pretty standard, below ten% doesn't allow for variance
and payouts above 20% are a waste of resources generally😎👍

 

[dreamer13]

In summary, the buy-in size should depend on the experience of the participants and their "monetary comfort" point. On the one hand, the buy-in should be large enough to create an incentive to fight for 1st place, on the other hand, it should be small enough for the participants to play comfortably and enjoy the process, and not tremble with fear of losing.

 

[gabryyyel31]

When you play in a large field of players, I think it's better to have more paid places, even if the money you earn is less, to reduce the variation, maybe if the number of players were smaller, I would like to play for larger amounts to take more risks but in the long term and for bankroll management I would choose smaller prizes but greater chances of getting into money and recovering my investment.

 

[hobojim1247]

I think this answer depends on the poker ability of the average person in the tournament.
In a tournament where the majority of the players are novices , I like to see them payout 20%. This accomplishes 2 things, it gives a novice encouragement when they do get a payout and it makes it less profitable for good player to waste time trying to win a pot noticeably smaller than it would be if the payout was to the top 10%.

I like what the wsop has done the past couple of years by first paying the top 15% then raising the min cash to 2x the buyin. This attracts a lot of marginal, but adequately skilled, players can see themselves doubling their money by lasting into the top 15%. Good move by the WSOP.

Lastly for championships they should stay at the 10% range. This restrictive payout a attracts a premium field and rich fish who have more money than skill and an ego to play with the elite for their photo ops.

Want a wild tournament? How about a $1K ,winner take all? Listening are you, WSOP?
Imagine a day in which there would be hourly starts of these tounaments with a limit of 100 players in them and 30 minute blind. Pot chopping allowed.

 

[thetick33]

for me i go for 10X system as favorite meaning for each 10 spots one is paid....so 90 people 9 paid...favorite would be 60 people playing 60 paid 6 seats if could have that...a little faster game is ok...10 minute blinds reasoning for that is more time more can climb etc...but if was playing here? 5 minute turbos probably be best cause play is better...if random tournament having the 10 minutes would be my happy spot.....turbos force you at times to make uncomfortable moves especially in our freerolls etc...i like that here...but ya in a random? give me all the time possible so can climb at my pace and learn the players by the time we reach the final table so can make a plan on most of their earlier play

 

[Dimidrol2]

Let there be a second option with a large number of places that are paid for, followed by a lower minimum size and smaller jumps in payments, so there is less chance of going into negative territory.

 

[BelFish]

I like winner takes it all!

Hehe

15% places ITM with slow jumps of prizes...
I think it's good...

 

[MishkaZL]

I've always preferred tournaments with more paid seats. For me, 20-25% of paid seats from 100% of players is quite acceptable.

 

[Stringy]

depends on the total cash to amount of players, in general i like 10-20% payouts 30 if I'm lucky

 

[riff_raff312]

I think 10/20% is good with slow jumps or you could just play PKO tourney's i think these are the better value if that's what you're for.

 

[Dzill_230]

Hello everyone. I have familiarized myself with the thoughts of those who have left their messages in this topic and have come to my own decision. Since most forum participants, like most participants in freerolls, are beginners, like me, having more paid places and smaller jumps is good; you get rewarded for your time spent. However, all professionals assert that the main payouts come at the final table, so by deciding to participate in a tournament with a smaller prize pool, relatively high payouts, and significant jumps, I acknowledge the risks—after all, I decided to play to win prizes, so the incentive to reach the final table and receive a substantial reward is worth it. Some view poker as a business, which is why the concept of managing your bankroll, considering risks, and chances of success arises. So for me: if I want to spend time and play for enjoyment, I choose larger pools and smaller jumps, but when I set a goal to earn money, it’s the opposite. Wishing everyone a great mood at the tables!! Glory to Ukraine!!😎🤘🇺🇦

 

[PHX]

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this question. It all depends on a player's preference. I like bigger payouts a minimum cash of at least 2.5 times buy in with less players in the money.

 

[Like2Play2]

At least 10%,
I remember making the final table in a tourney where only 7 of the 9 players would get paid.

 

[mclay]

I am quite satisfied with the standard 15%, I think it is optimal and time-tested.

 

[ScooperNova]

I don't play that often but I prefer a lower percentage of players paid and bigger payouts. If I played more often or eked out a living, I'd probably prefer more payout spots. I like when around 10% of the field gets paid, because those payouts are nice. Now that being said, in smaller fields, I like a few more places paid. In a field of 40, i think 6-7 is a good place. 4 just isn't enough to reward a good run of play and cards in some cases.

 

[19aleks57]

I prefer poker tournaments with more seats and lower payouts, especially if the tournaments are online.

 

[ammje]

I prefer the second option, perhaps for a player who has already won a lot of money in poker, he may prefer the first option.

 

[Lena M]

Hi
It's perfect for me when there are a lot of paid seats. It's especially cool when it comes to satellites, and it's quite possible to find such tournaments, especially on weekends

 

[Edu1]

depends of the buy-in range
high stakes 10% to 15% with substantial pay jumps
freerolls and low stakes 20% is good.

 

[Igor Popadyk]

first place is ideal for me, but seriously, in addition to a cash prize, it’s nice to also receive a ticket to a more expensive tournament

 

[mrfastflow]

More places paid
I also thought about the possibility of ending the game by exchanging chips for money at any moment in the game.

 

[theStarfish]

I like tournaments with a flatter payout structure, where at least 15 % of the players get paid I won´t complain if it is 10 % but I prefer more

 

[10058765]

Spread out the lower payments...it will keep the bad /losing players aboard as they mincash a bit more often and keep on playing.
In the long run they will lose their money anyways but it will feel less harsh and make them more eager to redeposit.
The tournaments will still stay top heavy and spreading it out a bit more will not affect the top prices to much.

 

[yuriko oyama]

I know it's harder, much harder.
But when a few win and we manage to be champions, the feeling is wonderful.
May it always be like in the Bible, many will be called, but few will be chosen.