MollysPoker.com

[Matt Savage]

I flattened the payouts during the 2004 WSOP and took a ton of heat from the top
players. Most of the players however responded very positively, I was very happy
to see the Bellagio spread it out and all you have to do is be at one of those
events and hear the huge sigh and applause when the bubble player busts out to
understand that the majority loves a flatter payout.

Matt Savage

http://www.SavageTournaments.com


_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

[jacksup]

Matt,

Why does there even have to be a bubble player? Take this Bellagio
tournament as an example. Instead of giving 51-100 $30k, why not give
51-70 $30k, 71-80 $25k, 81-90 $20k, 91-100 $15k, 101-120 $10k, and
121-140 $5k (or something like that)? Now there's no huge sigh because
the pay increases are much more gradual, and everyone can worry about
playing poker instead of insuring their place In The Money. I can't
imagine this would be all that difficult logistically. Players might
object at first to cashing and still losing money overall from the
tournament, but the more times this flatter structure gives them money
they wouldn't have won, the more they'll like it. And players that got
in via satellite will LOVE it (and we want to keep those players
happy).

If everyone hates finishing on the bubble, and everyone agrees bubble
time slows up the tournament and probably reduces the skill factor the
rest of the way as a result, I don't understand why there has to be a
bubble.

Having said all that, some of my biggest edge comes at bubble time, so
I'm personally OK with leaving the system as is.

Matt

[Prowler]

The majority will always support what rewards the mediocre (I realize in this
case that is very relative as they are all top competitors, but the average
among them).  What prevents you from suggesting / utilizing a shootout format
and creating the payout level to match the winners at each table, with it
progressively increasing?



On Apr 20 2005 11:57 PM, Matt Savage wrote:

[Tanya AKA misst74]

On Apr 21 2005 2:23 AM, jacksup wrote:

[jacksup]

Tanya and Balthasar,

Yes, there would still be a player who comes one person away from
making money. But if the difference between cashing and not is 0.2
buyins, that's quite different from a difference of 1.2 buyins. The way
it is now, players fight to make sure they get to the top 100 and then
there are no more pay increases for 50 spots. Here, there would be much
less reason to fight for 141st, as the pay increase from 140th would be
small, and there would actually be a significant difference between
51st (30k) and 100th (15k).

Matt

[Tanya AKA misst74]

I see your point, but I will have to admit that I am not one of those people
that enter a tournament to win back .2 of my buyin. I bought in, it's money that
I am out, I consider it lost, UNLESS I can make it in the money, then I will
actually MAKE money and not just come out even after hours and hours of play.
(Or LIKE even with .2 return). Difference in opinions is all.

Tanya Peck


On Apr 21 2005 4:51 PM, jacksup wrote:

[A. Prock]

According to Tanya AKA misst74 <[email protected]>:

[Guest]

Matt Savage wrote:

[[email protected]]

I am a huge fan of the flatter payouts. Reduces the variance and
doesn't really have to impact the top payouts. It is the middle people
and the earlier out on the final table that have their paydays cut