Airline format pay schedules

Discussion in 'Ideas to Promote or Improve Tournaments' started by TXtourplayer, Mar 16, 2009.

  1. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    I have believed for years that we were shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to paying out in tournaments. These top heavy prizes are great if you make the final table, but that is only 6 players out of 150 – 200 players. Most of those losing players would keep coming back keeping the tournaments going if only we paid deeper and spread the wealth better.

    Several players have told me they love playing tournaments, they just can’t afford to go play knowing they have to make the final table in order to win any money. If they just won their entry fee back they would feel better about trying more events.

    Well I agree with them and that is why I created the following pay schedules for the Airline format events I have been working on. Below are the pay schedules for both the qualifiers and Championship events.

    Qualifiers pay schedule: Based on $50,000

    1st = 40% = $20,000
    2nd = 20% = $10,000
    3rd = 13% = $ 6,500
    4th = 9% = $ 4,500
    5th = 6% = $ 3,000
    6th = 3% = $ 1,500
    7th – 18th = 6% = $3,000 (breakdown = 12 players at $250 each)

    Dealers tip pool = 3%

    Championship pay schedule: Based on $500,000

    1st = 40% = $200,000
    2nd = 20% = $100,000
    3rd = 10% = $50,000
    4th = 7.5% = $37,500
    5th = 5% = $25,000
    6th = 2.5% = $12,500
    7th – 18th = 5% = $25,000 (breakdown = 12 players at $2,083 each)
    19th – 54th = 7% = $35,000 (breakdown = 36 players at $972 each)

    Dealers tip pool = 3%

    I believe the above payouts will be fair for everyone and hopefully allow players to continue to play in these events (at least until they win their two qualifying seats).

    *NOTE: Any change from the 7th – 54th place payouts will be given to the dealers (about $11.88)
  2. Sandy Eggo

    Sandy Eggo Member

    As a tourney player starting to dip into the higher priced (and larger pool of players) tournies...I do agree that the odds of 6 or 7 places paying vs. 400 buy-ins (with no re-buys) is daunting. (Eg: Pechanga's tourney this past Saturday.)

    What you are suggesting falls into the pattern I see with the really large pot poker tourneys that trickle it out to at least get 1/2-buy-in back. That would keep me going a little easier than trying to be one of the final 6 or 7.
  3. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member


    Poker tournaments pay out to about the top 10% of entries, but it is pretty typical that first only gets about 25% of the pot, in the really big tournaments. That allows the payouts to go deeper and to be more significant for those that just miss the final table.

    Typically, with small tourneys, the final table may well be 10% of the entries, that would be tourneys up to 60-70 persons. Seems as if when you start getting up to 150 - 200 players, then you do get some payout for reaching the semi-final, maybe just a promo chip though. Viejas paid very deep - top 50 or so of 200 players, with semi-final players getting $500, and entry was only $100. But, that means first got only $10,000 (I think) out of a $50,000 prize pool.

    So maybe BJ and Poker aren't so much different, given different formats, and the size of the tournaments.

    Maybe reduce the top prizes a little, and share that money downward some?
  4. LeftNut

    LeftNut Top Member

    TX and RK (and Viejas) have the right idea. Pay down further so that more get some. The current norm of giving half or more of the prize fund to one person, and only paying the final table, doesn't exactly send many folks home with the desire to try it again someday. Especially in larger field tournaments, at least the semifinalists should get a reward.
  5. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member

    Payout comments


    Just some thoughts on payouts. I have been playing a few online poker tourneys, and seeing what they do, think we could follow their lead, and better than you lay out in your post.

    Usually poker tourneys pay the top 10%. So if there are 90 players, only the final table would receive money (or maybe they would do 15% in that case). If there are 700 players, the top 70 get paid. This isn't hard and fast, as it may be the top 12% getting something, etc. - but, usually very close to, and never less than 10% getting paid.

    What they do with the payout schedule, is lower the top prizes as the number of payouts increase. So that the first place finisher gets, for example, 25% of the prize pool in a big tourney, with many paid. I believe in the WSOP Main Event, the winner gets about 20% to 25% of the prize pool.

    Often the payouts may go something like: 1st: 25%; 2nd: 15%, 3rd, 9%, etc.

    BJ payouts are outlandishly top heavy; in GN Laughlin tournaments, for $20,000; first pays $10,000, while second, if I remember right, pays something like $2,500, as they pay off something to a lot of semi-finalists, and have some drawings, so everyone but first loses out. This tourney attracts maybe 100-200 players.

    So - suggestion: A) Always pay something to semi-finalists. B) reduce the percentage to the top finishers as the number of players and payouts go up. Level out the pay offs some under any circimstances. Never pay more than 35% to the winner, unless it is a sit and go. C) Since poker has the advantage of being able to exactly determine who finished 20th, etc., as you dip below the semi-final table - duplicate this feature by determining payouts by highest chip count at each table among non-advancers - in example, if two advance from quarter-final table to semi-final, and you need to pay off three persons at each tournament to hit the 10% payout level, pay only the highest chip count that did not advance. This could add an interesting play element, as players who aren't likely to advance may decide to play for the money (being 'on the bubble'). One alternative might be to use an accumulation round to fit players into the 'money' bracket.Say two elimination rounds to narrow the field, then an accumulation round to determine the top 70 out of 125, with players finishing in the top 70 but not making the next elimination round getting a pay out.

    I think that this would make a beter game, In TBJ, you pretty much have to pile up firsts and seconds to make any money, lower finishes not paying enough to count, and getting nothing for making semi-finals, etc. - Poker players can do ok simply by getting a high finish, maybe not even making a final table. If we can approach that with TBJ, I think it would help encourage people to play, and reward good players for being able to consistently advance, even if they don't get the win.
  6. London Colin

    London Colin Top Member

    I think that would be a really bad idea. The chip count of a non-advancer is in no way a measure of how well they have performed. Nor, really, is the position they finish in at the table. (I've played in online tournaments where there was a progressive pay scale among the non-advancers at the table.)

    I much prefer Rick's idea - pay everyone who reaches a particular level (i.e. the semi-final or quarter-final) the same amount for getting that far, even if that means you can't always get close to the magic 10% figure.
  7. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Good feedback

    I'd like to pay as many players as possible, but truth is there isn't enough money to go around and be worth the travel expense in most blackjack tournaments.

    A big concern from several players is what if they travel and the turnout is low will the lower rounds still get paid and dilute the final table prize pool? I do agree that a set amount should be in the prize pool before any prize money is paid out in the lower rounds.

    I won't have players traveling to an event and shorten the final table just to pay deep. Now once a certain level has been reached I have no problem paying as deep as possible.

    The amount when to start paying the lower rounds will be determined when and if we get the events off the ground.
  8. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member

    SOme comments

    London -

    The purpose of paying non-advancers - at only one level - is simply to reduce the number of people getting pay outs - in poker you can determine exactly who finished 23rd, etc. - in table elimination format tournament blackjack - you can end up with a very large number of non-advancers, at the lowest pay off level - diluting the pay offs - if they all get paid - using the highest non-advancing chip count at each table - is a very reasonabe way of picking which of the non-advancers get paid - many tournaments use this method to 'wild card' a few players into the next level - taking highest non-advancing chip counts over all tables - fairer to take one at each table to be paid off - and - for players with little chance of advancing - maybe even locked out - they can play for the non-advance money - giving them a goal - not a bad idea - a good idea -


    why the concern on having a big top prize to attract players who need to travel? - how about a 'better chance of winning something' to attract players who need to travel? - the way to building up the prize pool is to attract more players - and having the payouts spread over more players might just do that - am I going to be attracted to a tournament where I have a 3% chance of winning big money more than I am a tournament where I have a 30% chance of winning something? - part of the problem with traveling to tournaments is the expense of the trip plus the buyins plus.... when the chance of recouping any of that expense is small - because so few get paid at all - yes - when you do hit big, you make a lot - but you can play a lot of tourneys, winning very little or nothing - before that happens -

    if players know they have a realistic chance of making back their expenses - I would think that would encourage them to travel to a tournament - not discourage them -

    If we want to attract new players - well - what could be more discouraging then a player never cashing? - What can discourage someone from traveling to tournaments more then making the final table - and still losing money on the trip? because 6th place pays so little?
  9. LeftNut

    LeftNut Top Member

    Agree & Disagree

    RK - Good thoughts, and here's some back atcha:

    DISAGREE - Using loser's chip count to determine who gets paid. Paying an equal amount to all non-advancers in a given round is the way to go. Just because some other tournaments take high loser chip counts to the next round doesn't make it right. It's rather unfair. We all know that there will be tables where the dealer is "hot" as well as some where the dealer is dumping chips like crazy. Everyone at a given table is on even ground since they're playing against the same dealer. If you get the rough table with a hot dealer, you're screwed. The smart promoter can figure out a way to set up the available prize payouts in a fair manner. I do this all the time in another game. It's not that tough. One could design the elimination rounds so that fewer make the "cash" (even if this means an extra round) which will make for a better payout for those who do lose after making the first cashing level.

    AGREE - Pay more players, cut down the 1st place money. One of TBJ's biggest problems with popularity is the heavy top loading of prize payouts, which causes too few cashing players. For example, I just got a mailer for a $40K BJT. First place gets $20K and it drops all the way to $6500 for 2nd! 6th pays a whopping $750, so I could make the final table and still not break even. :eek: For $500 plus travel and other expenses, I'm forced to say "thank you but I'm really not interested".

    It is Rick's decision, but I would like to see his 1st place winners get no more than 30% of the total prize fund (25% would be better), with 20%-25% of players getting something. You're right, RK, newbies who repeatedly do well but don't win anything are quickly going to tire of it. If they win something, even if it's only their entry fee returned, they're much more likely to try it again. That's just human nature, and I've seen this phenomenon in another game for decades.

    We don't need to re-invent the wheel here, but the wheel we have isn't working very well.
    Some imaginative redesigning would be a good idea - as Rick is trying to do with the overall format!
  10. London Colin

    London Colin Top Member



    Sorry, I think I (and Leftnut) may have misread your suggestion. I thought you were proposing to pay high chip counts across all tables (a sort of accumulation-within-an-elimination tournament), but it looks like you simply meant paying third place at each table (or more places if the prize pool is big enough), with first and second advancing to the next round.

    I still prefer a flat payout for all the non-advancers at the table, but I don't object so strongly to this alternative.

    It effectively adds a final-table dynamic to proceedings, even before the final table is reached, as you can get into the quandary of whether to risk a certain, or near-certain, in-the-money finish for some possibility of advancing further.

    I just think I prefer the qualifying rounds to be entirely about trying to finish as BR*, with no other considerations to worry about. Only at the final table do you then have to weigh your chances of winning the different amounts on offer, if you should fall behind the leaders.
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2009
  11. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Interest in lower 1st prize?

    Leftnut on a $50,000 prize pool if we awarded 30% for 1st place that would only be $15,000 (Like the way I say "ONLY", I'd love to have), But I'm not sure if we could draw in the players for that low of a 1st prize.

    Don't get me wrong, $15,000 would be a nice piece of change to pick up, however I believe most players wouldn't travel for that small of an amount. Matter of fact most players that have been contacting me would rather cut out any payments to anyone other then the finalist.

    Kind of a catch 22 here, damned if I don't and damned if I do! I know with the Airline format I really can't cut it down, what players would be willing to pay $1,000 entry with maximum payout of $15,000? I truly believe that $20,000 for $1,000 entry is as low as I can go on these payouts.

    Now I do like the idea of trying to start another tournament somewhere with deeper payouts and maybe a 25% to 30% payout for 1st like Leftnut is suggesting with payout throughout the quarterfinal like I am suggesting for the Airline format events. That way the top 54 player could all walk away with something and I do agree would build more interest in tournament blackjack.

    The "Pro's", seasoned tournament players, tournament junkies,or whatever you want to call them, mostly want to play for bigger prize money, but until we start building up the number of tournament players, we're never going to get the big prizes back like we use to have.

    When I first started it was nothing to have a field of 500 - 600 players paying a $350 entry fee and $600 buy-in (in every round) playing live money events. Now most events are lucky if they break 100 players.

    I use to think that "Live money" events were the way to go, (I loved them), but after surveys of over 300 tournament players, it wasn't close. The majority prefered the no cash value chips.

    I think now days lower entries and of course prizes paid deeper maybe the wave of the further if we expect to get new players interested in blackjack tournament over poker.

    Personally I'd love to see 3 - 5 events scheduled together over 6 days and points awarded over the week for the top 3 - 5 players besides each individual event. Entries ranging from $100 with $50 re-buys to $300 with $150 re-buys and prize amounts from $5,000 to $20,000 for first place and at least entry fees back for the quarter-finalist and semifinalist making a little profit.

    Even these multiple events like I held with the TBJPA and the ones in Tulsa failed to draw in large turnouts (around 100 players ). Without the locals and comp-ed players we're never going to have the huge turnouts like we use to, that is why I think the Airline formats may save blackjack tournaments and even then it will only be because of the multi-levels of entries for all the different players and with the double entries (if taken) few players can still create a big enough prize pool to entice travel and make it worth the expense.

    Now it works great, but if we start getting players complaining that it's not fair for someone to start 2 rounds in front (even though they are paying 4 times more entry), or if they don't like the deeper payouts or whatever the case maybe, we can't afford not to support these events if we want to keep having them, for the regular players anyway. Ad if we do get them going lets not shoot ourselves in the foot anymore, please give the host casino some side action.
  12. pokernut

    pokernut New Member

    I think the deeper down a tourney pays the better, this maybe why poker tourneys draw so much better than Bj events plus Poker tourneys will not be a one event only they are usually 10 to 20 events in 10-15 days with entry fees from $100 to 5000. By having several events you spread the travel expenses to several events making each event
    cheaper, you might consider having multiple events like poker. Example of recent poker tourney payouts.:
    Harrahs Tunica Poker Tournament / WSOP Circuit Event
    Event #1 - No Limit Hold'em
    January 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM

    Buy-In $300 + $40
    Prize Pool $149,574
    Entries 514

    Place Name Prize
    1 Ronald Sewell (Shelby, NC, USA) $37,384
    2 Mark Smith AKA "Pegasus" (Georgetown, KY, USA) $18,697
    3 John Martinez AKA "Lucky" (Fair Oaks Ranch, TX, USA) $9,722
    4 Ricky Blackburn AKA "Jr" (Portland, TN, USA) $5,235
    5 Ethan K Foulkes (Westfield, MA, USA) $4,487
    6 Dorian Grant (Atlanta, GA, USA) $4,113
    7 Chad Smithson (Franklin, TN, USA) $3,739
    8 Adam Young (Tulsa, OK, USA) $2,991
    9 Charles St. Clair (Wallon, MO, USA) $2,618
    10 Wendell Brown (Carolton, GA, USA) $2,244
    11 Danny Youmans (Nashville, TN, USA) $2,244
    12 Charles Belcher (Rowlette, TX, USA) $2,244
    13 Jim Rye (Gravois Mills, MO, USA) $2,244
    14 Lewis Campbell (Knoxville, TN, USA) $2,244
    15 James Davis (New Albany, MS, USA) $2,244
    16 Phyllis Milam (Walls, MS, USA) $2,244
    17 David Key (Baton Rouge, LA, USA) $2,244
    18 Andy Guynes (Robinsonville, MS, USA) $2,244
    19 Chris Hunt (Paris, KY, USA) $1,870
    20 Margarita Schramm (St Louis, MO, USA) $1,870
    21 Dan Bakker (Hot Springs, AR, USA) $1,870
    22 Raymond Blanchette (Sunset Beach, NC, USA) $1,870
    23 William Sikes (Savannah, GA, USA) $1,870
    24 Larry Boyd (Jonesboro, AR, USA) $1,870
    25 Douglas Carli AKA "Rico" (Alliance, OH, USA) $1,870
    26 Tim Laws (Columbia, MO, USA) $1,870
    27 Todd Bartlett (Dallas City, IL, USA) $1,870
    28 John Gilbert (Huntsville, AL, USA) $1,122
    29 Daniel Nicewander (Bluefield, WV, USA) $1,122
    30 Dax Fitzgerald (Memphis, TN, USA) $1,122
    31 Curtis Connors AKA "cj" (Tulsa, OK, USA) $1,122
    32 Kurt Seibel (Coppers Cove, TX, USA) $1,122
    33 Danny Nelson (Batesville, AR, USA) $1,122
    34 John Riola (Biloxi, MS, USA) $1,122
    35 Jack Lee (Fredricktown, OH, USA) $1,122
    36 Jerry Edwards (Paragold, AR, USA) $1,122
    37 James Devins (Owensboro, KY, USA) $748
    38 Ron Germany AKA "The Germ" (Covington, GA, USA) $748
    39 Nick Lafata (Springfield, IL, USA) $748
    40 Nathan Gentry (Fairburn, GA, USA) $748
    41 Tom Wilson (Bakersfield, NC, USA) $748
    42 Michael Smith (West Memphis, TN, USA) $748
    43 Richard Jentzsch (Knoxville, TN, USA) $748
    44 Charles H Casavant III (Avilla, IN, USA) $748
    45 Steve Weigel (Wedowee, AL, USA) $748
    46 Ray Niepoetter (Salem, IL, USA) $748
    47 Jerry Venable AKA "JV" (Cleveland, TN, USA) $748
    48 Darrell Mitchell (Elkhart, TX, USA) $748
    49 Robert Jolly (Monroe, TX, USA) $748
    50 Kyle Milam (Little Rock, AR, USA) $748
    51 Anthony Vidmer (Nashville, TN, USA) $748
    52 Larry Tomaszewski (Selmer, TN, USA) $748
    53 Jacob Bazeley (Cincinnati, OH, USA) $748
    54 Scott Burleigh (Baton Rouge, LA, USA) $748

    Event #14 - WSOP Circuit No Limit Hold'em Championship
    February 2, 2009 at 12:00 PM

    Buy-In $5,000 + $150
    Prize Pool $735,919
    Entries 154
    Place Name Prize
    1 Kai Landry (Biloxi, MS, USA) $183,974 and + WSOP Seat
    2 David Dao (Elizabethtown, KY, USA) $117,744
    3 Matthew Stout AKA "All In At 420" (Galloway, NJ, USA) $73,590
    4 Leonard Eidson AKA "LB" (Bulls Gap, TN, USA) $61,816
    5 Jeremy Byrum (Katy, TX, USA) $51,513
    6 Mike Leah AKA "GoLeafsGoEh" (Toronto, ON, Canada) $44,154
    7 Glenn Hyde (Atlanta, GA, USA) $36,795
    8 Brian McCoy (Memphis, TN, USA) $29,436
    9 Frank Wyville (Anniston, AL, USA) $22,077
    10 Gavin Smith (Las Vegas, NV, USA) $14,718
    11 Vince Byrd AKA "vinnyb" (Dayton, TN, USA) $14,718
    12 Quentin Battle (Raleigh, NC, USA) $14,718
    13 Jeremiah Vinsant (Murfreesboro, TN, USA) $12,510
    14 Mike Burrier (Conway, AR, USA) $12,510
    15 Jeff Morrill (Brentwood, TN, USA) $12,510
    16 James Kizer AKA "Jr" (Collierville, TN, USA) $11,049
    17 Tony Calender (Ledbetter, KY, USA) $11,049
    18 Va Shon Watkins (Aurora, IL, USA) $5,519
    19 Kathy Liebert (Las Vegas, NV, USA) $5,519
  13. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Apples to apples

  14. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member


    Changing the pay out structures isn't a magic wand that will instantly transform tbj into a sucess like poker tournaments, but...we know what is being done now DOESN'T WORK - so why are we sticking to it? The way to get big pay outs is to attract a lot of players. The way to build up the player pool is to get people to play on a regular basis. This is not happening now. Bottom line - keep doing things the old, failed, way, and we keep failing - try something new -and try it for long enough to give it a fair test.

    Deeper payouts will take time to take effect. But - those who say they prefer a top heavy pay out structure are wrong - changing the pay out structure does not alter the tournament's EV - and while winning gets you less - deeper pay outs get you more pay outs, and this benefits skilled players as well as newbies. It doesn't earn you less, but evens out the variance in earnings.
  15. TheLegend

    TheLegend Member

    how i see it......

    First.....lets look at some history of how things started....

    WSOP.....small group of guys got together many years ago and put their $10k entry fee in the pot.......They must have designated somebody to collect the money......somebody they trusted.....this eventually evolved into a structured organization or company if you will.

    Professional Golf.........I don't know the exact history of how the PGA started but I am willing to bet that they first started by putting their entry fees together and trusting somebody to hold it.....

    Professional Tennis........see above.....

    Bowling Tournaments.......The Professional Bowlers Tour and many many tournament organizations around the country are successful because players trust the tournament directors not to run off with the cash. One organization comes to mind.......High Roller bowling tournaments.....has paid out many many millions of $$$$$$ over a 30 year history.......They asked amatuer bowlers to send them 1000 bucks to bowl just one game (if you lost) back in 1981.........and guess what.....they sent em the cash....TRUST!!!

    there are other smaller examples at the regional level for pool tournaments, darts, etc.......

    Bottom line to our problem is NOT the FORMAT!!!!!!!!

    It is more about this question: Is it worth it to TRAVEL for one or two events? NO..unless its a WINSTAR type event.....but even that trip was financially painful.

    I point to an 8 year period where it was possible to go to Vegas about every 8 or 9 weeks......and play in up to ten events of varying entry fees and formats....over a ten day period. All of these events had varying degrees of success based on entry count.......some were highly successful.....some were successful........and some were just ok......

    Players trusted the casinos to give them their money back then......but since casinos dont organize their schedules to have tournaments during same time frame........we don't have a group of tournaments bunched together to make it economical to TRAVEL..........

    Paying deep doesn't make it more enticing for me to TRAVEL..........more tournaments during my vacation week makes it more enticing for me to travel.

    Since casinos won't do it for us these are the steps we need to take as players:

    1.We need to ORGANIZE as A GROUP

    2.Setup our own schedule of 5 events that takes place over a week

    3.COMMIT to TRAVEL with deposit money by TRUSTING a BONDED tournament organizer

    4.Then negotiate the best deal possible with a casino to host the event.

    The Ultimate Blackjack Tour was an example of this........but the entry fees were too high......

    Rick tried to do this for cruises......but cruising added an extra expense..

    Rick tried to do this in Laughlin........maybe the venue was wrong...or MAYBE there wasn't enough TRUST when Rick had the casino willing to work with him.......

    one last point.........its all about numbers.....Ken has over 10,000 members on this site.......10% of that is 1000 members..........5% is 500 members.....half of that is 250 members.......

    How many tournament players do we need to have good payouts?

    200 players fills up a we need less then 2.5% of Ken's entire membership to be SUCCESSFUL

    Can this be achieved? Yes, but not until we PUT OUR MONEY on the table.....until then......same old same old........YOU CAN BET ON THAT!!!.
  16. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    WSOB payouts?

    I've been racking my mind trying to figure out how we could payout closer to the poker outs and all I keep coming up with is Final table 1st - 6th, semifinals - all that don't advance get the same amount, same for quarterfinal payouts.

    Then I remembered how the WSOB did their payouts every round. They would pay 1st - 6th at each table in each round similar to Sit & Go event, but with the final round higher in their payouts.

    So I was thinking players might go for this pay scale.

    Example for Semifinals: instead of 3rd - 6th at each semifinal table receiving $250 each, break the money up for position finished.

    1st - Advance to next round (only money is 6th place guarantee money in next round)

    2nd -Advance to next round (only money is 6th place guarantee money in next round)

    3rd place - $550

    4th place - $300

    5th place - $100

    6th place - $ 50

    So instead of 12 player tie for 7th place you'll have:

    3 player tie for 7th = $550 each

    3 player tie for 10th = $300 each

    3 player tie for 13th = $100 each

    3 player tie for 16th = $ 50 each

    This may make each table worth play out and jockey for position over $550 for 3rd vs. $50 for 6th place.

    Myself, I don't care either way, $250 for 3rd - 6th, or stacker 3rd - 6th like the example above. Either way 3rd - 6th will payout $1,000.

    So let me have some feed back as to which pay schedule you would prefer to play.

    It seems to be the closest to a poker payout I can come up with. And no vig. on these events only 3% for tip pool.
  17. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Is the vig. correct?

    Pokernut, did you copy this correct? They are charging over a 13% vig. for this event? WOW!
  18. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Another suggestion for paying deeper in tournamnets

    One of the arguments I have heard about paying positions in blackjack tournaments is because every table is different (some may have a hot dealer and other not. Well I was thinking about that and the only difference is in poker tables are broken down and players are moved to fill other tables.

    Well we can't do that, but what we can do is call out when a player goes out or all in and pay according to final chip totals for th e3rd - 6th at each table and actually pay 7th - 18th in the semi's and 19th - 54th in the quarter's.

    Example for semifinal's payoffs: total $3,000.00 in prize money.

    Table 1

    3rd has 1.900
    4th has 1,200
    5th has 675
    6th has 350

    Table 2

    3rd has 975
    4th has 825
    5th has 800
    6th has 650

    Table 3

    3rd has 800
    4th has 750
    5th has 600
    6th has 0

    So the final payout positions and payouts would be as follows:

    7th - table 1, 3rd place, with 1,900 = win of $750
    8th - table 1, 2nd place, with $1,200 = " " $550
    9th - table 2, 3rd place, with 975 = " " $350
    10th - table 2, 4th place, with 825 = " " $250
    11th - table 3, 3rd place, with 800 (tie) = " " $212.50
    11th - table 2, 5th place, with 800 = $212.50
    13th - table 3, 4th place, with 750 = " " $175
    14th - table 1, 5th place, with 675 = " " $150
    15th - table 2, 6th place, with 650 = " " $125
    16th - table 3, 5th place, with 600 = " " $100
    17th - table 1, 6th place, with 350 = " " $75
    18th - table 3, 6th place, with 0 = " " $50

    I can't think of anyway to make blackjack tournament payouts closer to poker then this way.
  19. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member


    Rick -

    Since tables can vary so much - I would suggest paying the 3rd place finishers at ALL TABLES the same - regardless of chip counts - then pay the 4th place finishers - then the 5th, etc. - so pay out is by placement - not chip counts - a small adjustment to make it fairer - and then go down only as far as you need to - to hit the 10%+ payouts?

    Looking at the payouts for the Fitz TRunica tournament just posted - expaercxtation 150 entries, only 7 places pay - finish 7th, and if you have to travel across country - you might break even -

    So - to get to the 10% figure - pay the second place finishers at each semi-final table - or the 2nd and 3rd - depending on the number of semi-final tables - and these should be getting the $1,500 - or maybe $1,000 at least - with the top pay out reduced to $15,000 or less.

    Say a pay scale like this - for $60,000 in the pool

    1st $12,500
    2nd $7,000
    3rd $6,500
    4th $5,000
    5th $4,000
    6th $3,000
    7th $2,000

    8-14 $1,428 or

    8-14 $1,000
    15-21 $428
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2009
  20. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member

    Why change pay outs

    Why should we change the pay out patterns for TBJ?

    Well, lets be thoughtful here -

    If you have an edge - of any magnitude - that edge accumulates over the tables you play - the more tables one needs to advance to get to the money - the more cummulative edge a good player has. The good player also has an edge at the final table - so - is more likely to win the final table than an average player - while the EV of the tournament does not change when you change the payouts - the personal EV of a good player is a little higher when the money is concentrated at the top - so it is not surprizing that experienced players want a top heavy pay out schedule - but - that is very short sighted -

    some considerations - even for the best players - wins are rare - it is easy to go a pretty good number of tournaments betwween wins - a more graduated pay out scale will produce more winnings over these periods even for good players - over such periods - as their lower placement and semi-final finishes will pay them more - so they will not lose as much personal EV as they might think. AND - the travel and entry fees for those non-win tourneys have to come from somewhere - are you putting them on your credit cards and paying interest? - are you paying them in cash/etc. - and needing to keep a sizeable liquid bankroll rather then being able to invest that money and earn interest on it? - whatever - you lose out having to finance the losing streaks - and they will be there for all players - there is a carrying cost to going through a series of tournaments until you hit the big pay outs - even for the best players - so this further reduces the advantage to a good player of having the money concentrated at the top -

    A deeper payout scale will encourage - over the long run - more players to enter tournaments - by giving more new and casual players a taste of cashing - and this will in the long run - build up the player pool - which will bring more money into the tournaments, and create bigger prize pools with larger pay outs at all levels - this benefits skilled players in the long run.

    We shoot ourselves in the foot when we ask for top heavy payscales - this style of pay out simply discourages players and reduces the number of players and the size of the prize pools over the long run - increasing the number of players - and - through doing so - increasing the prize pools - should be our goal - anything else is short-sighted and foolish.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2009

Share This Page