Poll Results: The Verdict on Tournament Payout Structures

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.

This column's most recent poll question dealt with the issue of tournament payout structures – specifically, is tournament prize money too "top-heavy," and if so, should payouts be "flattened out." More than 6,000 readers voted in the readers poll at Card Player's website. I also received several e-mails, most of which supported a more equitable payout structure. The results of the poll, along with several comments, are detailed below.

The Issue: Poker tournaments have never been more popular. Because of increasing public interest and greater participation in tournaments, it's time to re-evaluate how much prize money should be paid to the top places. Top-heavy payouts come at the expense of players who receive lower payouts at the bottom of the scale. This also means fewer players finish in the money. On the other hand, flattened payout structures means less money for tournament winners, which reduces the magnitude of a tournament victory.

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

Yes – 46 percent

No – 54 percent

(1,243 votes cast)

Comments: The results of this poll question were surprising. Relatively few poker players have ever won a major poker tournament or finished high in the money. Therefore, one might expect the majority of poker players to favor significant changes in payout structures, which would increase their chances of winning money. While a slight majority of readers do believe the current system tends to be weighted too heavily toward the top places, these poll question results demonstrate that there is no clear consensus of opinion. The bottom line is – the poker community is split right down the middle on this issue.

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 – 56 percent

No, make the payouts top-heavy – 44 percent

(1,297 votes cast)

Comments: In order to determine public sentiment about tournament payout structures, it was important to poll readers on two related questions. This poll question was posted (at the CardPlayer.com website) two days after Question 1. Therefore, a slightly different sampling of voters was polled, which accounts for the small discrepancy in the results. After all, if one believes the current system is weighted too heavily toward the top places, it follows that one would favor flattening out payout structures. Although a slightly higher percentage of readers do favor a reorganization of payout structures toward lower finishers, there is still no consensus of opinion.

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 – 36 percent

Increasing one's chance of making it into the money – 64 percent

(690 votes cast)

Comments: These results are much more one-sided. Most poker players are satisfied to make it into the money. By nearly a 2-to-1 margin, the majority of readers believe the average poker player is more attracted to the notion of getting something in return for his participation in a tournament, rather than aiming for a huge top prize. However, if this is the case, why doesn't the same majority favor flattening out the payout structures? One possible explanation is that while poker players are divided on the question about payout structures, a clear majority believes that finishing "in the money" is a greater motivation than aiming for one of the top places.

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

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

49 percent say … "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)"

(940 votes cast)

Comments: Here's where we begin to see clear patterns of perception amongst tournament players. It's important to note that a slight majority of players actually favor "top-heavy" payouts in small daily tournaments. Readers say they favor the general concept of flattened payouts, but in the small daily events that have become so popular, they want higher payouts concentrated amongst the top finishers. Why the contradiction? The answer is simple. In essence, players who play in small daily tournaments are not quite as motivated by making it into the money as finishing in one of the top places and winning a greater percentage of the prize money. What's the point of playing in a tournament for several hours and making only a few dollars?

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

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

56 percent say … "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)"

(873 votes cast)

Comments: Note that as the buy-in increases, fewer players favor gambling for one of the elusive top spots. While more small daily tournament players are willing to take the chance of winning one of the top prizes at the expense of finishing in the money, once the high buy-in threshold is crossed, players are not nearly as risk tolerant. The majority of players who favor flattening out tournament payout structures with buy-ins of $1,000 and higher are probably influenced by bankroll limitations. They want a greater chance of winning a small amount of prize money at the expense of potentially winning a bigger cash prize.

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?

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

79 percent say … "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"

(1,004 votes cast)

Comments: In the most extreme example of big-money tournaments, readers were polled on their attitudes toward the main event of the World Series of Poker (and other high-profile $10,000 buy-in tournaments). Now, the consensus is overwhelming. By nearly a 4-to-1 majority, players favor paying more places. The majority of readers are willing to reduce the grand prize and double the number of players who are paid. Readers favor the concept of paying 10 percent of the field, as opposed to a smaller percentage. Since we are now reaching the point where the biggest events in poker could have upward of 1,000 entrants, tournament organizers would be wise to consider these results, which demonstrate a clear consensus of opinion to flatten out the payouts in the biggest events.

I have wrestled with payout structures in both professional and amateur bowling tournaments for the past 40 years. During that time, I've promoted several tournaments myself and have helped quite a few other tournament directors calculate how their prize funds should be distributed. Usually, the payout structure is designed to attract the greatest number of participants. Here's what I've seen in bowling:

1. Amateur bowlers prefer a flatter structure. One prize for each three or four entrants is by far the most popular payout ratio, and tends to attract the largest percentage of repeat entrants. Of course, a few specialized events such as two- or three-game "sweepers," having big payouts for the first few places, conducted in conjunction with larger tournaments, seem to be popular even though they have ratios of 1-to-8 or 1-to-10.

2. In tournaments open to both amateur and professional bowlers, the amateurs prefer a flat structure while the pros want fewer places that pay more. I've known a few tournament directors who went along with the wishes of the pros for one tournament, but I've never seen anyone try it twice. The amateurs – the majority of the entrants – simply won't come back.

3. Professional bowlers who are bowling against other professionals in professional tournaments prefer a very flat structure of 1-to-3 or even 1-to-2. Due to the limited amount of money available on the Professional Bowlers Association Tour, a steeper payout structure might well result in its demise. If fewer bowlers earn enough to remain on the tour and pay entry fees, a downward spiral of prize funds will result. In this respect, poker, with many tournaments offering huge paydays, clearly differs from bowling.

So, what's the point? In poker, particularly this year, we can have it both ways.

This is not a one-size-fits-all issue. Many experienced players prefer steeper payout structures, but thanks to the World Series of Poker and the World Poker Tour on TV, huge numbers of people are playing $1-$2, $2-$4 or $4-$8 for recreation; 90 percent or more of them have lives and jobs, and the money they win or lose at the poker table doesn't really matter. Most are just having fun and don't want to turn pro or even move to a higher limit. Still, a $30 cash-out in a $20 tournament will bring them back, and tonight's small cash-outs equal more folks signing up for next week. It's a sure thing that some, encouraged by repeated successes, will decide to test their skills at higher limits, and that just might be OK with those who play only "serious" tournaments.

There is nothing to prevent a manager from offering tournaments with both steep and flat payout structures and a variety of buy-ins, to see what works best. Personally, I would be surprised if only one structure proves to be an overwhelming favorite. Just as people play different games, at different limits, and at different times of the day, a mix of tournament payout structures may well procure more profit for the cardroom and fatten a few pots in the live games, as well.

- Howland (by e-mail)

I vote for flatter payout structures because the tournaments I play in become a crapshoot at the final table. Since luck becomes a much greater factor at the final table, the winner should not be so greatly rewarded compared to the other high finishers. I may change my answer if there is a lot of room for play at the final table.

- Drew (drewjustdrew; by e-mail)

There are so many entrants in these tournaments that it is really difficult to finish with any form of a decent payout. It is really quite reminiscent of the pro golf tour from the 1930s through the 1960s. There just wasn't any money in it. Byron Nelson, Ben Hogan, Sam Sneed, and then Arnold Palmer and a few others just about "owned" the pro tour. Lots of great players saw no economic gain in giving up their businesses or jobs for a crack at it. I see lots of things on the horizon for poker, not all of them pleasant: seeded players, "Tour" cards, and the rest of this type of thing. Media and corporate sponsorship could quickly turn a "sonic boom" into a lot of "sour grapes."

- Gary Wever

I'm in favor of flattening the payouts. I like Tex Morgan's payout structure (used in the Wildhorse tournaments in Pendleton, Oregon). I've always been in favor of paying 10 percent of the field – hence, paying 15 spots in the Shooting Star Tournament with a 150-player capacity (first place, 33 percent).

- Chuck Thompson, Santa Cruz, CA

I've played in a half-dozen tournaments at the $50 to $100 buy-in level. I've been in the money three times – twice just barely and one final table. I'm looking forward to my next tournament, but I wonder if I would feel as enthusiastic if the payout had reached only 3 percent to 5 percent of the entrants and I had missed those two in-the-money finishes.

I think professionals are the only ones who would seriously object to a flattened payout structure for big-money tournaments. I suppose that whether there really is a difference between $1 million and $2 million depends on your point of view. By structuring the payouts to 10 percent of the entrants (regardless of the buy-in amount), I believe more people would be encouraged to play. With more entrants, the second-place finisher could then whine about missing the $4 million and going home with only $2 million.

- Loren Moody, Costa Mesa, CA

By far the most compelling reason to flatten payout structures is the effect of a casual player somehow making a big score and effectively taking a big chunk of money out of the game. This is analogous to a tourist hitting a bad-beat jackpot that the locals have contributed to and built up over several months, only to see "their" money go back home to Wisconsin or some such place.

I also would like to address the house "entry fees." Sure, it is expensive to run a major tournament, but, come on. How many of us would play in a money game in which the house raked 8 percent to 10 percent of every hand, regardless of how much was in the pot?

- Kenneth O. Dameron, Las Vegas, NV

I think, ideally, tournaments should be structured to keep the luck factor from dominating, just as we understand that over time, skill wins out over luck in a ring game. In a ring game, you are not out of the game when you lose an all-in hand; you can reach into your pocket for more money and keep playing. Tournament success depends on avoiding an all-in loss. Most tournaments are won by players who survive multiple all ins, which is against the odds, even if you have the best of it each time.

A major difference between proper ring game and tournament strategy is tied to the need to hold on to chips in a tournament, which may require you to sometimes forego playing to maximize the return on each good hand. And once you are in the money, it still is not like a ring game; you must be very conscious of your relative chip position, which is a strong predictor of your finishing position and exactly how much you will win. The need for or importance of these kinds of strategic adjustments is REDUCED if the payout is flattened. The net effect of flattening out all tournaments will be that the money will gravitate toward those who would do best in ring games over the long haul. Isn't that the elite group we want to recognize as the best at their craft?

The foregoing applies to tournaments funded exclusively by the players. It would be nice to see poker get to the level where, as in golf, players are playing to win money put up by entities outside the pool of competitors. Then, I would certainly expect those who are sponsoring such tournaments to want top-heavy prizes, and those wishes should be accommodated! Dreaming on, one could imagine, as in golf, competing to join this pro circuit. I envision the poker version of graduating from the PGA Tour qualifying school as coming out on top with some frequency in player-funded tournaments (with relatively flat payouts).

- David W. Brown

Let me mention a couple of concepts that come to mind when the payout subject arises:

1. VALUE: When I reach and bust out at a final table, but reap no more money than is in an average ring game pot, I feel I have not spent my poker hours wisely.

2. COMPETITION and VARIETY: Why not offer a variety of tournaments? If 10 tournaments are offered in an event, why not have some of them spread at a flattened payout and others offered at a top-heavy payout? Let the players decide which they choose to play.

- Tony T. in Colorado

Readers are encouraged to visit www.cardplayer.com, where all poll questions will be posted. You also may e-mail your comments directly to [email protected].