Top 5 Payouts

[hungrybox]

In a tournament where top six is payed out:

1
2
3
4
5/5

yeah

60/20/10/5/2.5/2.5

makes little sense

40/25/15/10/5/5

makes somewhat more sense

Just throwing it out there...

 

[Rappster]

doesn't depend a lot on how big the pot is?

 

[Pierce7d]

Great thread, horrible title.

Work on that.

 

[Frames]

it should be

99/.5/.4/.06/.02/.02

 

[Dr Peepee]

I definitely agree.

Edit: With a 40% drop off being ridiculous and gay for second place.

Also(to below), screw you buddy Drumstick goes hard.

double: Drumstick is the only one capable of defeating TT. Get outta here with your lies.

rofl at no u

 

[j00t]

I definitely agree.

Drumstick sucks in Diddy Kong Racing.

There, I said it.

EDIT: To the OP, I do agree somewhat. I think that every person who gets a cut of the pot should atleast get a return on their entry fee. But I think 40% to first place would discourage top name players from attending the big tourneys.

EDIT EDIT: (to above) no way man the clock guy is da best in da DKR universe.

double: pfft no u

 

[Roneblaster]

top 5 should atleast get there money back at every tourney

 

[Moooose]

except in 5 person tournaments
i realy don't think that many top players will be discouraged by a 40% first place payout

 

[pony of endless death]

it shpould just be 100 percent payout to first place if you're not good enough just quit

 

[pockyD]

can someone actually try and explain why they think it makes more sense

 

[SleepyK]

i guess so the draw from the top 5s is a little more evenly distributed.

 

[Moooose]

it would motivate more players to enter since they have a higher chance of winning money

 

[pockyD]

i guess so the draw from the top 5s is a little more evenly distributed.

Why is this desirable? hypothetically, if more's on the line, better matches will be played right?

it would motivate more players to enter since they have a higher chance of winning money

you're still paying out the same number of places aren't you?


I personally don't care since I never get near the money anyway, but I'm just going to devil's advocate since everyone seems to be bandwagoning yes without anyone actually giving any reasoning

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I can't help but feel some bias in this.

The placing but not quite top placing players are going to want more spread-out payouts because they see it as more fair.

I can't really see any other reason.

 

[Ilove]

I can't help but feel some bias in this.

The placing but not quite top placing players are going to want more spread-out payouts because they see it as more fair.

I can't really see any other reason.

I don't think this thread is referring to the amount of players that are paid, but rather the general distribution of pay. Spread out pay wouldn't necessarily be a good idea anyways; a decently exclusive reward would probably motivate more players to get better (and because of that, be more active) as well as keep the top players at the top of their game.

OP:
Yeah, I think a more evenly distributed payoff system would be great. The way you set it up still keeps the value of the accomplishment of winning as well as rewarding people who obtained lower placings.

 

[SleepyK]

Why is this desirable? hypothetically, if more's on the line, better matches will be played right?

oh, i completely misread your question, lol. you meant why is a 5 split in the first place etc.

 

[ArcNatural]

How about might as well make it pay slightly more to the lower placings because splitting has become so rampant that 1st/2nd mean nothing sometimes.

 

[pockyD]

then all that's going to do is increase the split range by further homogenizing the top places

 

[TheManaLord]

Payout should be determined first by stock, then by percents. How many stocks you won by overall in a set and what your percentages were should determine how much you get paid. If you didn't lose any stocks and took no percent you'll win 100%

 

[Problem2]

with 40/25/15/10/5/5, 1st is still making nearly double that of 2nd place.

If you look at it this way. usually, top 3 pay out is
60/30/10 where 1st is x2 2nd, and 2nd is x3 3rd.

60/20/10/5/2.5/2.5 1st is 3x 2nd now?

o_O It's already a lot of money on the line for one thing. Players are going to want to win either way.

Another thing is with the original top 6 distribution, you're forcing 2nd place to share his money while 1st and 3rd are staying the same. I've always thought the distribution was off but never bothered to mention anything because it doesn't really affect me. (for now. )

 

[hungrybox]

with 40/25/15/10/5/5, 1st is still making nearly double that of 2nd place.

If you look at it this way. usually, top 3 pay out is
60/30/10 where 1st is x2 2nd, and 2nd is x3 3rd.

60/20/10/5/2.5/2.5 1st is 3x 2nd now?

o_O It's already a lot of money on the line for one thing. Players are going to want to win either way.

Another thing is with the original top 6 distributing, you're forcing 2nd place to share his money while 1st and 3rd are staying the same. I've always thought the distribution was off but never bothered to mention anything because it doesn't really affect me. (for now. )

EXACTLY.

exactly what happened to me at HERB3.

Exactly.

 

[Winston]

Another thing is with the original top 6 distributing, you're forcing 2nd place to share his money while 1st and 3rd are staying the same. I've always thought the distribution was off but never bothered to mention anything because it doesn't really affect me. (for now. )

I don't get this part. who is 2nd place sharing his money with?

 

[DtJ Hilt]

Payout ratio we usually use in midwest (AlphaZealot's payout system) is 48/24/12/8/4/4 which works really, really well.

 

[mr.fizwidget]

i have a feeling this thread would not have been made if the results were different...

 

[Problem2]

Payout ratio we usually use in midwest (AlphaZealot's payout system) is 48/24/12/8/4/4 which works really, really well.

Best distribution ever. No one can argue against perfect double payout for every place you make higher than 5th. I would do 57/28/15 payout for top 3 myself, but the numbers are really weird. I don't think people would like it.

@Gustav Wind:
If a tournament that was paying out 60/30/10 changed the payouts to accommodate for top 6 by distributing it 60/20/10/5/2.5/2.5, which player of the top 3 ends up with less money?

The answer is 2nd place, because if it was top 3 payout, 2nd place would take home 30% of the pot, but in top 6 payout, he's only taking home 20%. In both Top 3 and top 6, 1st and 3rd are still taking home 60% and 10%.