Comments on: MSPT Adjusts Payout Structure http://www.mnpokermag.com/2010/06/19/mspt-adjusts-payout-structure/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:15:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kent Allen http://www.mnpokermag.com/2010/06/19/mspt-adjusts-payout-structure/comment-page-1/#comment-2862 Kent Allen Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:53:08 +0000 http://www.mnpokermag.com/?p=2170#comment-2862 I understand those at the top not liking the change at all. I'm talking about those few players who have a reasonable and realistic chance of routinely cashing in these tournaments, but without the dream and participation of the masses that have a hope of cashing at all, let alone winning an event, there are no big tourneys or big payouts. I believe this encourages those people and those in-between to participate. If they cash or even win an event it's good for poker and good for everyone. I understand those at the top not liking the change at all. I’m talking about those few players who have a reasonable and realistic chance of routinely cashing in these tournaments, but without the dream and participation of the masses that have a hope of cashing at all, let alone winning an event, there are no big tourneys or big payouts. I believe this encourages those people and those in-between to participate. If they cash or even win an event it’s good for poker and good for everyone.

]]> By: Mark http://www.mnpokermag.com/2010/06/19/mspt-adjusts-payout-structure/comment-page-1/#comment-1029 Mark Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:54:09 +0000 http://www.mnpokermag.com/?p=2170#comment-1029 Just to clarify, it was the initial decision I thought was bad, which is why I didn't attend Running Aces or Northern Lights after enjoying the kickoff tournament at Canterbury last December. The compromise is definitely better, but it still leaves me leery of the small venues. But thanks to this decision I'm going to come check out the MSPT again at Jackpot Junction. Paying 18 places is still disappointing for 100 or less (as is paying 27 places for anything less than 200 entrants really), but I'm just gonna hope that the turnout makes it all irrelevant. Just to clarify, it was the initial decision I thought was bad, which is why I didn’t attend Running Aces or Northern Lights after enjoying the kickoff tournament at Canterbury last December.

The compromise is definitely better, but it still leaves me leery of the small venues. But thanks to this decision I’m going to come check out the MSPT again at Jackpot Junction. Paying 18 places is still disappointing for 100 or less (as is paying 27 places for anything less than 200 entrants really), but I’m just gonna hope that the turnout makes it all irrelevant.

]]> By: Mark http://www.mnpokermag.com/2010/06/19/mspt-adjusts-payout-structure/comment-page-1/#comment-1028 Mark Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:41:07 +0000 http://www.mnpokermag.com/?p=2170#comment-1028 I think it was a bad decision. Yes it mimics the payout structure of the HPT, if that's all your after. But look at what that leads to - the last event had only 87 entrants, and 27 of those cashed! It spread the wealth so thin that there really wasn't any wealth at all. The first 14 cashed for less than the tournament's buy in....that's over half those who cashed. It's ridiculus to pay over 30% of the field like that. I understand that many players qualify into the tournaments for $250, and are looking to make money. Yet most entrants play a few qualifiers increasing their initial costs (the stat of "60% of MSPT main event fields are players who qualified through means of a $250 satellite or less" is very skewed because of this), and there are always people who buy in directly. To have "cashes" for a few hundred dollars defeats the purpose of this kind of tournament. Personally I'm really disappointed. I'm seriously reconsidering playing the smaller venues where the turnouts simply do not justify this payout structure. I think it was a bad decision. Yes it mimics the payout structure of the HPT, if that’s all your after. But look at what that leads to – the last event had only 87 entrants, and 27 of those cashed! It spread the wealth so thin that there really wasn’t any wealth at all. The first 14 cashed for less than the tournament’s buy in….that’s over half those who cashed. It’s ridiculus to pay over 30% of the field like that.

I understand that many players qualify into the tournaments for $250, and are looking to make money. Yet most entrants play a few qualifiers increasing their initial costs (the stat of “60% of MSPT main event fields are players who qualified through means of a $250 satellite or less” is very skewed because of this), and there are always people who buy in directly. To have “cashes” for a few hundred dollars defeats the purpose of this kind of tournament.

Personally I’m really disappointed. I’m seriously reconsidering playing the smaller venues where the turnouts simply do not justify this payout structure.

]]> By: Everett Carlton http://www.mnpokermag.com/2010/06/19/mspt-adjusts-payout-structure/comment-page-1/#comment-944 Everett Carlton Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:51:28 +0000 http://www.mnpokermag.com/?p=2170#comment-944 Good choice. You guys always seem to make the correct decisions. The MSPT events are the best structured tournaments in Minnesota. Good job. Good choice. You guys always seem to make the correct decisions. The MSPT events are the best structured tournaments in Minnesota. Good job.

]]> By: Erik http://www.mnpokermag.com/2010/06/19/mspt-adjusts-payout-structure/comment-page-1/#comment-939 Erik Sun, 20 Jun 2010 02:15:16 +0000 http://www.mnpokermag.com/?p=2170#comment-939 Sounds pretty reasonable. Keep up the great work! Sounds pretty reasonable. Keep up the great work!

]]>