How Much to How Many?

Play is progressing at the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure, with the money bubble just having burst as of this writing. There are a couple hundred happy people in the Bahamas. That number may be surprising, given that the field was "only" 1,500-strong. Why are so many people being paid?

There are two schools of thought on payout structures. PokerStars (and each of its land-based tours) takes the approach that spreading the wealth around is the soundest approach. In 2009 they began to pay 12.5% or more of each field, with the payouts being somewhat flat. Consider that last year the PCA attracted 1,347 players and that champion Poorya Nazari won $3.0 million. This year's field is larger by 13.5%, but because a staggering 15% of the field is collecting prize money, the first-place prize of $2.2 million is 26.7% less than 2009's first-place prize and roughly 15% of the total 2010 prize pool.

The other school of thought is represented by Commerce Casino, the WPT and, to a lesser extent, the WSOP. Similar-sized events hosted by those organizations typically pay out 10% of the field, with the winner receiving 20-25% of the prize pool. Event #1 of the 2009 L.A. Poker Open at Commerce paid the winner 22% of a prize pool created by more than 3,000 entries; the WPT's 2009 Main Event of the L.A. Poker Classic, with Cornell Cimpan taking 25% of the prize pool for besting a field of 696; and Event #36 of the 2009 WSOP, $2,000 NLHE, drew 1,695 runners and offered the winner 19% of the prize pool.

It's tough to say why one event or organization will pay out more or less of the field (and to the winner) than another, but I have my ideas. The cynic in me would guess that PokerStars feel paying more players less money is in its own best interests because it (1) will create more "winners", which encourages more play; and (2) will allow more of that money to be funneled back into the "poker economy", which means more rake collected.

On the other side of the coin, more "established" organizations like WPT, Commerce and the WSOP -- and notably organizations that also lack an online presence -- may believe that besting a field of that size is an accomplishment and that the reward should match the accomplishment. Since they have less of a vested interest in seeing the money returned to the economy, they're willing to give the spoils of war to the victor. Critics argue that it's a bit of a windfall, that a few percent less of the prize pool won't make too much difference to the victor but could make a huge difference to the rest of the field.

I'm of the mind that 10% of the field should be paid, but that within that 10% a *slightly* flatter payout then that used at places like Commerce is ideal. If you're going to outlast 90% of the field, you should get more than just 50% over your buy-in. But there's no wrong answer here. Like blind and ante structures, payout structures can be designed differently depending on what the tournament is trying to accomplish. They're just another facet to consider before plunking down the money for a seat card.