Let's play pretend (sort of) and posit the following scenario:
1) A blogger-only 10 player NL SnG
2) Entry fee: $1,000
3) Winner gets an entry into the 2006 WSOP Main Event
4) Every entrant other than the winner gets a certain percentage stake in the winner.
Here's the question. If you had $1,000 to drop on such a thing, what do you think a fair percentage would be, as far as the stake each entrant would get in the winner? What would be most appealing to you, as far as balancing your outlay and potential reward? It also should be noted that part of the purpose is to send a blogger to the ME, so it's not entirely a selfish equation. Or maybe it is. I dunno.
Would every losing entrant getting a 5% stake in the winner, with the winner keeping 55% be an attractive proposition?
Would you, as a potential winner, want to retain more than a 55% stake if you're going to pony up $1,000 in a satellite to potentially win a WSOP seat?
Should it be 2.5% for each entrant, with 78.5% going to the winner?
Are none of these attractive when you can enter a satellite yourself for about the same cash outlay and keep 100% of your winnings to yourself?
Just curious. Many thanks for any and all input.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Here's a question: I've heard a rumor that the WSOP Main Event will be capped at 8000 entrants.
What if the winner isn't able to get in?
Chris
Wow, limited entry to the WSOP... that's crazy! (but I could see the reasoning). Maybe its time for them to make a $25K or $50K event to spread the field a little if they have to turn people away.
Scurvy, as to your questions about percentage stake for a WSOP satellite... The live group I play with ran a similar satellite to the $2K Shooting Star event (and we're doing another for this year's event). Our solution was to do a stepped stake structure -- 10th got 2% while the second place finisher got something like 8%.
Obviously, you could pick the values how you want, but a 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 8 would leave 71% for the winner yet still give a good consolation prize for the runner up. 2% of a possible $10 mil isn't too bad...
To more specifically answer your question, I'd lean towards giving the winner a larger stake in themselves whether you do a flat or stepped structure. $1K entry is a lot for most people (even bloggers) and I think the winner should own at least 70% of themselves.
Ok, that's my opinion at least.
Like you said, why would one enter something like this when you could enter any number of satellites and keep the winnings yourself.
I could understand doing this at a home game, between a close group of friends, seeing who's the best of the best to represent the group at the WSOP.
And while the Poker Blogger community is pretty tight-knit, I would feel better about just straight-up staking someone for a 1-to-1 percentage payout.
Maybe an alternative would be to run the SnG at $1100 or $1200, with the additional money in the prize pool going to the winner to cover travel expenses, etc. and also giving each other entrant a 1 or 2% stake.
I don't know why I'm even chiming in on this as I'm definitely not equipped to play at that level. How about just some $10 SnGs to qualify for a Super Satellite?
5%
Though 55% might not sound like a lot, the amount of $ the winner gets from endorsements, invites etc will be more than worth it.
If I did this, I'd probably do two things:
1. Graduate the payout
2. Make the buyin $1100 and give $1000 to the winner to offset the potential that their "win" would net them nothing and the fact that they don't retain all of their equity.
I'd leave 60% of themsevles to the winner and go:
10-8th: 2% each
7th-5th: 4% each
4th: 5%
3rd: 7%
2nd: 10%
Interesting idea...
Post a Comment