I understand all the numbers, but I don’t see any problem here. When I first read your headline, I thought Harrah’s was secretly increasing the vig on some events. *That* would be a scandal.
Harrah’s is paying out exactly the same percentage of the prizepool whether there are 100 entries or 3,000 or 1,499. It’s just being paid out in slightly different ways. And how many people decide on whether or not to play an event by the fact that 9% of the field gets paid or 7%? The advantage of the 7% (generally) is that once you make the money, you make a little more. And poker players tend to be a cocky group.
Yes, I think Harrah’s could improve the payouts to make them more gradual, rather than having 500-player jumps. But it’s hardly a scandal. As long as the payout structures are published in advance and adhered to, I have absolutely no problem with it.
Hey BJ,
I didn’t say it was a scandal..or intentional for that matter. And obviously Harrah’s makes the same money either way. But I’m one of those people that doesn’t necessarily care if things are good or bad – I just like things to be fair. And it doesn’t strike me as equitable that the larger buy-ins pay out a larger percentage of the field. I think it was an oversight when they put together the structures – and one I hope they address next year.
Every year you put it in perspective. Does ol’ Jeff Pollock hide behind the palm trees when he sees you approaching?
ROFL
Well I was wondering about this, now could give us the poop on on how much Harrah’s got for the endorsement and TV deals?
jb
I understand all the numbers, but I don’t see any problem here. When I first read your headline, I thought Harrah’s was secretly increasing the vig on some events. *That* would be a scandal.
Harrah’s is paying out exactly the same percentage of the prizepool whether there are 100 entries or 3,000 or 1,499. It’s just being paid out in slightly different ways. And how many people decide on whether or not to play an event by the fact that 9% of the field gets paid or 7%? The advantage of the 7% (generally) is that once you make the money, you make a little more. And poker players tend to be a cocky group.
Yes, I think Harrah’s could improve the payouts to make them more gradual, rather than having 500-player jumps. But it’s hardly a scandal. As long as the payout structures are published in advance and adhered to, I have absolutely no problem with it.
Hey BJ,
I didn’t say it was a scandal..or intentional for that matter. And obviously Harrah’s makes the same money either way. But I’m one of those people that doesn’t necessarily care if things are good or bad – I just like things to be fair. And it doesn’t strike me as equitable that the larger buy-ins pay out a larger percentage of the field. I think it was an oversight when they put together the structures – and one I hope they address next year.