And Justice for All: Should Tournament Payout Structures be Flattened?

Author's note: "Table Talk" is intended to be an in-depth discussion of the most important issues in poker. My column will feature a wide range of perspectives designed to encourage debate and decisions on current topics within the poker industry.

Poker tournaments have never been more popular than they are today. Because of increasing public interest and greater participation in tournaments, the issue has resurfaced about how much prize money should be paid to the top places. The problem is, top-heavy payouts come at the expense of other players, which are the lower "in the money" finishers. This is part of an ongoing debate between veteran pros and recreational players as to how tournament payout structures should be organized.

Many top pros prefer maintaining top-heavy payout structures. They believe strongly that the best poker players should be rewarded with big cash prizes. Supporters of top-heavy payout structures also allude to the promotional value of higher first-place prize money. Big money is seductive and attracts greater public interest, they say. A convincing argument can also be made that suggests top-heavy payouts are absolutely necessary for a professional poker tour to exist.

The downside of top-heavy payouts is that fewer people ultimately get paid, and those at the bottom of the economic ladder receive less money. Those who favor "flattened" payout structures prefer paying more poker players and wish to encourage the redistribution of prize money amongst a greater number of poker players. Everyone agrees that tournament winners should get the most money. However, according to advocates of reform, the drop-off between first and second place (often half of the top prize) is far too severe. This brings up the controversial issue of dealmaking. Supporters of flattened payout structures believe there are fewer incentives to make deals when not as much money is at stake from one place up to the next. Furthermore, if more places were paid, players who barely squeeze into the money would be encouraged to re-enter more tournaments in the future. The end result is better for the game of poker.

Now, let's see where you stand on the issue.

Question 1: Is the current payout system weighted too heavily toward the top places?

Yes – The current payout system gives enormous advantages to tournament pros, who know what it takes to finish in the top places. To win any substantial amount of prize money, players must finish in one of the top three places – where most of the prize money is concentrated. This means that thousands of dollars may swing on the turn of a single card. That's not skill, but luck. The very worst thing about top-heavy payout structures is that it encourages deals – believed by many to be counter to the competitive spirit of the game. As poker continues to grow, we must adopt new ways of thinking that will encourage more players to enter tournaments. One way to help this process is to pay more players who finish near the top of the field.

No – Winners, and those who finish in the top spots, should be rewarded for their accomplishments. It doesn't make any sense to give the player who finishes 24th in a poker tournament his money back. What's the point of that? Players enter big-time poker tournaments because, in some cases, the amount of the prize money to be won can actually be life-altering. To change the fundamental attraction of poker tournaments, which is to hit a big payoff, would be a mistake.

Question 2: Should tournament payouts be flattened out? That is, should we return more prize money to a greater number of players, at the expense of first, second, and third places?

Yes, flatten the payouts – Let's talk about what is good for poker. Clearly, paying more players is preferable to paying fewer players. When more players are paid, it means a greater number of those same players are able to afford playing in a future poker tournament. Furthermore, players who finish in the money are encouraged to play again, since they will have tasted success. Then, there's the issue of redistribution of money back into the poker economy. Hypothetically, if 10 players are paid $1,000 each, many of them will recycle the money back into cash games, satellites, and tournaments. Instead, if you award that same $10,000 (which would have been paid out to the 10 players) solely to the first-place winner, he's more likely to go out and buy an expensive consumer item (a car, for example), and the money leaves the poker economy forever. That's not good for poker.

No, make the payouts top-heavy – It is essential that the top places have high payouts. Otherwise, a professional poker circuit could not exist. If players merely trade their money back and forth, there is less incentive to travel to out-of-state casinos and play on the poker tour. Without attractive payouts in the top spots, there would be no television coverage. For the pro tour to exist, there must be high cash prizes for the top places in order to fuel both financial and media interest. Top players and many amateurs are attracted to tournament poker because it offers a real chance to "get rich." Flattening payout structures is contrary to the very nature of tournaments, which is to reward the top finalists. If steady redistribution of money is the goal, cash games already accomplish that.

Question 3: Which is more attractive to the average poker player – winning a huge payout or increasing one's chance of making it into the money?

Huge payout- All you have to do is look at state lotteries. When the jackpot skyrockets, more people buy lottery tickets. It doesn't matter that the odds of winning are exactly the same, no matter what the amount of the jackpot. The same thing goes for the Megabucks slot jackpot. The World Series of Poker is the biggest and best poker tournament because it was the first to award $1 million to the winner and continues to award the highest prizes to the top players.

Increasing one's chance of making it into the money – Poker players are not lottery addicts. More commonly, they are sophisticated gamblers who are seeking value for their dollar. Most people know the prospect of winning first place in a major poker tournament is a long shot. What attracts players is the competition and excitement of the event. If more players get back a small cash prize with a flattened payout structure, they are encouraged to come back and play again.

Question 4: In a hypothetical daily poker tournament with a $100 buy-in and 80 entrants, which payout structure do you prefer?

Pay three places – first (50 percent), second (30 percent), third (20 percent)

Pay six places – first (40 percent), second (25 percent), third (15 percent), fourth (10 percent), fifth (7 percent), sixth (3 percent)

Pay nine places – first (25 percent), second (20 percent), third (15 percent), fourth (12 percent), fifth (10 percent), sixth (8 percent), seventh (6 percent), eighth (3 percent), ninth (1 percent).

Question 5: In a hypothetical major poker tournament with a $1,000 buy-in and 80 entrants, which payout structure do you prefer?

Pay three places – first (50 percent), second (30 percent), third (20 percent)

Pay six places – first (40 percent), second (25 percent), third (15 percent), fourth (10 percent), fifth (7 percent), sixth (3 percent)

Pay nine places – first (25 percent), second (20 percent), third (15 percent), fourth (12 percent), fifth (10 percent), sixth (8 percent), seventh (6 percent), eighth (3 percent), ninth (1 percent).

Question 6: In a hypothetical world championship-level event with a $10,000 buy-in and 1,000 entrants, which payout structure do you prefer?

Pay 50 places – Guarantee $5 million for first place (50 percent of the prize pool) and make the payouts top-heavy

Pay 75 places – Guarantee $3 million for first place (30 percent of the prize pool) and make the payouts in smaller incremental amounts

Pay 100 places – Guarantee $2 million for first place (20 percent of the prize pool) and flatten the payouts considerably so more players can make it into the money.

What do you think? You are encouraged to visit www.cardplayer.com, where you can register your votes. Please do so by Jan. 2, 2004. You also may e-mail your comments directly to: [email protected]. Comments may be printed in a follow-up column, along with poll results. Due to space constraints, please limit your comments to no more than 300 words. All comments received may be edited for content.