What do people think about the payout structure here on SKY ?

MISTY4ME

I was looking at the payouts on Sunday night for the Mini Major, and to be perfectly honest, I was shocked to see that the minimum cash was so low (for finishing 26th to 30th was £14.47). meaning that you made just £3.47 profit for an £11 stake....... and even 10th - 15th (£20.67) didn't even double your entry fee

It wasn't until you got to 9th place that you made more than double your entry fee, which means you would have to play for around 4 hours to do so.

I know the money up top is quite good, but I know (as a small stakes Recreational player), this payout structure stops me paying to enter the Mini major on a Sunday Night, which is a pity 'coz I would love to play it every week, as I much prefer Freezeouts to Bounty Hunters......

I have been fortunate to win FREE entry to the Mini Major (from SKYPOKER's Forum Comp's) on several occasions, but if I was having to pay an £11 entry fee, I think I would rather spend £11 playing a (T)DYM for 10 - 30 mins to double (or lose) my money.

I don't know how to set-up these polls ( perhaps @Essexphil or @Tikay10 could help) but what do people think?

Should there be less prizes so the min. cash is at least 'Double your Money' ?

Should the Top 2 or 3 prizes be reduced to allow a better spread of prize Money ?

Is the Prize Money OK because players just enjoy playing Poker, and any Prize Money is a Bonus ?

What do people think ?

HAYSIE

How would you have split the money up then?

Essexphil

On a personal level, I agree with you. There is a very sharp increase in prize money. Taking last Sunday's Mini Major, as an example. 159 entrants, hence £1,590 prize money.

1st-£429. 2nd-£250. 3rd-£143. Min cash-£14. 30/159 (18.8%) paid

The money up top for the £110 Major was similar to the Mini. The reason the Min Cash was double the buy-in was only 20/135 (14.8%) paid.

It's never easy setting the prize money for these. Far more people are attracted to enter due to the Top Prize, rather than the Min Cash. Not saying it should be this way-just that it is.

I don't think Sky will reduce the payouts at the top. What they might do is increase the Min Cash by reducing the number of people paid.

Bean81

I'd like a min cash to be double money and a bit less for the top 3. I realise the big first price appeals to recs and regs though.

The main change to the prize pool I think should be made is to set first and second equal in bounty tournaments, so the HU prize is the sum of the remaining bounties. Or at least make the two prizes closer together.

It's unusual for a min cash to be as low as the one you set. It will be due to the calculation that works the same on all sites which involves a step change in the number of places paid at certain field sizes. For example, if 100 runners 12 get paid. If 101 runners, 15 get paid.

kapowblamz

I think you have to ask why people might want a bigger min cash, and then ask why people might want bigger payouts at the top.

It's tough to find much substance to wanting bigger min cashes but there's plenty of merit for top heavy payouts.

The house needs to be having some nice 1st place prizes because that is what brings people in rather than some min cash.

MISTY4ME

I definitely think that the min. cash should always be double the entry fee as a minimum ...... even if that means cutting the Places paid/and or trimming the Top 3 or 4 prizes

I know it's difficult to get the balance just right, and is probably why Bounty Hunters are so popular here on SKYPoker

HAYSIE

HAYSIE said:

How would you have split the money up then?

I think that identifying a problem is really easy.
Coming up with a solution is more difficult.
If you didnt change anything, to increase the prize money outside the final table would mean either reducing the final table prize money, or reducing the number of places that get paid.
Both options would no doubt create objections.

Alternatively you could increase the buy in.
Although to do this in the middle of the of a cost of living crisis may not be a popular decision.
If you could increase the buy in to £16.50, and maintain the number of runners, this would increase the prize money by 50%, and allow a small increase to all places.
Although the reality of increasing the buy in may result in less runners.
I dont really have a clue of what would happen.
If you increased the buy in to just £15, and this reduced the number of runners to the number quoted by @Essexphil earlier in the Major.
Say you got 135 runners, and pay 20 places.
This would mean paying out around £1,800, but over a third less places.
Although paying less places may be unpopular, as may increasing the cost of the buy in.

I dont claim to have any knowledge of running a poker site.
An argument for increasing some of the buy ins, is that when I started playing on Sky, which I believe was in 2009, the main had the same buy in as it has today.
So increasing some of the buy ins, as well as the guarantees, may be popular with some players, but not others.
Although increasing the buy ins during a cost of living crisis may backfire.

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

HAYSIE said:

How would you have split the money up then?

I think that identifying a problem is really easy.
Coming up with a solution is more difficult.
If you didnt change anything, to increase the prize money outside the final table would mean either reducing the final table prize money, or reducing the number of places that get paid.
Both options would no doubt create objections.

Alternatively you could increase the buy in.
Although to do this in the middle of the of a cost of living crisis may not be a popular decision.
If you could increase the buy in to £16.50, and maintain the number of runners, this would increase the prize money by 50%, and allow a small increase to all places.
Although the reality of increasing the buy in may result in less runners.
I dont really have a clue of what would happen.
If you increased the buy in to £15, and this reduced the number of runners to the number quoted by @Essexphil earlier in the Major.
Say you got 135 runners, and pay 20 places.
This would mean paying out around £1,800, but over a third less places.
Although paying less places may be unpopular, as may increasing the cost of the buy in.

I dont claim to have any knowledge of running a poker site.
An argument for increasing some of the buy ins, is that when I started playing on Sky, which I believe was in 2009, the main had the same buy in as it has today.
So increasing some of the buy ins, as well as the guarantees, may be popular with some players, but not others.
Although increasing the buy ins during a cost of living crisis may backfire.

Completely agree.

The only thing I would add is that there should obviously different pay-out structures for Freezeouts and Bounty Hunters.

Having a Min Cash that is close to the buy-in for Bounty Hunters is fine-because only half the buy-in goes to the end pay outs.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

HAYSIE said:

How would you have split the money up then?

I think that identifying a problem is really easy.
Coming up with a solution is more difficult.
If you didnt change anything, to increase the prize money outside the final table would mean either reducing the final table prize money, or reducing the number of places that get paid.
Both options would no doubt create objections.

Alternatively you could increase the buy in.
Although to do this in the middle of the of a cost of living crisis may not be a popular decision.
If you could increase the buy in to £16.50, and maintain the number of runners, this would increase the prize money by 50%, and allow a small increase to all places.
Although the reality of increasing the buy in may result in less runners.
I dont really have a clue of what would happen.
If you increased the buy in to £15, and this reduced the number of runners to the number quoted by @Essexphil earlier in the Major.
Say you got 135 runners, and pay 20 places.
This would mean paying out around £1,800, but over a third less places.
Although paying less places may be unpopular, as may increasing the cost of the buy in.

I dont claim to have any knowledge of running a poker site.
An argument for increasing some of the buy ins, is that when I started playing on Sky, which I believe was in 2009, the main had the same buy in as it has today.
So increasing some of the buy ins, as well as the guarantees, may be popular with some players, but not others.
Although increasing the buy ins during a cost of living crisis may backfire.

Completely agree.

The only thing I would add is that there should obviously different pay-out structures for Freezeouts and Bounty Hunters.

Having a Min Cash that is close to the buy-in for Bounty Hunters is fine-because only half the buy-in goes to the end pay outs.

For sure.
There have been many occasions where I have failed to cash in the main, but have been paid out more than a min cash in head prizes.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

HAYSIE said:

How would you have split the money up then?

I think that identifying a problem is really easy.
Coming up with a solution is more difficult.
If you didnt change anything, to increase the prize money outside the final table would mean either reducing the final table prize money, or reducing the number of places that get paid.
Both options would no doubt create objections.

Alternatively you could increase the buy in.
Although to do this in the middle of the of a cost of living crisis may not be a popular decision.
If you could increase the buy in to £16.50, and maintain the number of runners, this would increase the prize money by 50%, and allow a small increase to all places.
Although the reality of increasing the buy in may result in less runners.
I dont really have a clue of what would happen.
If you increased the buy in to £15, and this reduced the number of runners to the number quoted by @Essexphil earlier in the Major.
Say you got 135 runners, and pay 20 places.
This would mean paying out around £1,800, but over a third less places.
Although paying less places may be unpopular, as may increasing the cost of the buy in.

I dont claim to have any knowledge of running a poker site.
An argument for increasing some of the buy ins, is that when I started playing on Sky, which I believe was in 2009, the main had the same buy in as it has today.
So increasing some of the buy ins, as well as the guarantees, may be popular with some players, but not others.
Although increasing the buy ins during a cost of living crisis may backfire.

Completely agree.

The only thing I would add is that there should obviously different pay-out structures for Freezeouts and Bounty Hunters.

Having a Min Cash that is close to the buy-in for Bounty Hunters is fine-because only half the buy-in goes to the end pay outs.

The other thing I meant to say, but forgot, is that in the comparison that you quoted earlier regarding the mini, and the major, is that 10 more people got paid in the mini from 24 extra runners.
This seems disproportionate.
If the 30 was reduced to say 23, and therefore the same percentage that were paid out in the major, then it would cover a £6 increase for the bottom 16 places.
This would at least make the min cash just about double the buy in.
Although 7 less people would have got paid.
I suppose it boils down to a choice between more people getting paid something, and whether players consider a min cash is adequate.

Tikay10

HAYSIE said:

HAYSIE said:

How would you have split the money up then?

I think that identifying a problem is really easy.
Coming up with a solution is more difficult.
If you didnt change anything, to increase the prize money outside the final table would mean either reducing the final table prize money, or reducing the number of places that get paid.
Both options would no doubt create objections.

Alternatively you could increase the buy in.
Although to do this in the middle of the of a cost of living crisis may not be a popular decision.
If you could increase the buy in to £16.50, and maintain the number of runners, this would increase the prize money by 50%, and allow a small increase to all places.
Although the reality of increasing the buy in may result in less runners.
I dont really have a clue of what would happen.
If you increased the buy in to just £15, and this reduced the number of runners to the number quoted by @Essexphil earlier in the Major.
Say you got 135 runners, and pay 20 places.
This would mean paying out around £1,800, but over a third less places.
Although paying less places may be unpopular, as may increasing the cost of the buy in.

I dont claim to have any knowledge of running a poker site.
An argument for increasing some of the buy ins, is that when I started playing on Sky, which I believe was in 2009, the main had the same buy in as it has today.
So increasing some of the buy ins, as well as the guarantees, may be popular with some players, but not others.
Although increasing the buy ins during a cost of living crisis may backfire.

29th April 2007.

Time flies when you are having fun, eh?

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

HAYSIE said:

HAYSIE said:

How would you have split the money up then?

I think that identifying a problem is really easy.
Coming up with a solution is more difficult.
If you didnt change anything, to increase the prize money outside the final table would mean either reducing the final table prize money, or reducing the number of places that get paid.
Both options would no doubt create objections.

Alternatively you could increase the buy in.
Although to do this in the middle of the of a cost of living crisis may not be a popular decision.
If you could increase the buy in to £16.50, and maintain the number of runners, this would increase the prize money by 50%, and allow a small increase to all places.
Although the reality of increasing the buy in may result in less runners.
I dont really have a clue of what would happen.
If you increased the buy in to just £15, and this reduced the number of runners to the number quoted by @Essexphil earlier in the Major.
Say you got 135 runners, and pay 20 places.
This would mean paying out around £1,800, but over a third less places.
Although paying less places may be unpopular, as may increasing the cost of the buy in.

I dont claim to have any knowledge of running a poker site.
An argument for increasing some of the buy ins, is that when I started playing on Sky, which I believe was in 2009, the main had the same buy in as it has today.
So increasing some of the buy ins, as well as the guarantees, may be popular with some players, but not others.
Although increasing the buy ins during a cost of living crisis may backfire.

29th April 2007.

Time flies when you are having fun, eh?

It does.
I was a spring chicken in those days.

kapowblamz

Cutting the amount of people paid so that min cash is way more than the buyin is a good idea if you ask me. Grinding for hours to get your just over your money back is neither here nor there and it would make the bubbles so much more fun.

Paying 5-7% of the field instead of 12-20% has positives imo. Or even just pay the final table. That would be a juicy bubble.

MISTY4ME

29th April 2007.

Time flies when you are having fun, eh?


It does.

I was a spring chicken in those days

.

......Really ?

I seem to remember you puffing and wheezing just trying to climb the stairs up to Laugharne's Sales Deck

HAYSIE

.

HAYSIE

HAYSIE said:

MISTY4ME said:

29th April 2007.

Time flies when you are having fun, eh?

It does.

I was a spring chicken in those days

.

......Really ?

I seem to remember you puffing and wheezing just trying to climb the stairs up to Laugharne's Sales Deck

I have always been in favour of ground floor sales decks.