Sit N Go Payout Structure Gripes

[Konidias 0]

I consider myself a winning player, but the payout structure for sit n go's on FCP is just ridiculous. You invest the full amount to play, but even second place pays a very small reward for time and money investment put in.I feel that either one of two things should happen with the structure... either1) Reward a little less for first and a little more for second.2) Reward 3 places, paying 3rd the buy-in fee minus the tourney fee.Because let's face it... everyone has bad games where they just aren't hitting any cards. It would be nice to know that I could at least almost break even during one of those bad runs.For example, I was just in a $30 sitngo where I wasn't getting anything for the longest time. I finally get dealt 88 in the big blind and the flop comes out 10 high. So I push all in against the one guy in the hand, who has a load of chips. He calls, and flips over 55. So here I think I have him dominated but then guess what falls on the turn? Right, a 5. So out I go due to bad luck, and I lose $33 in the process, ending up in 3rd place.The fact that you absolutely HAVE to place 1st in order to make any decent profit off of these things, is really unrealistic and quite the put off. Even if you manage to take 2nd place you're getting like $12 profit on a $33 investment, which is only nice if you can constantly place top 2. There's no reason why 1st couldn't be valued for slightly less. Especially if it means that 2nd (or even 3rd) paid out something more satisfactory.Looking at the $33 5 seat sitngo structure, here is the current payout:1 $105.00 2 $45.00 Couldn't it be1 $752 $453 $30or even1 $802 $503 $20It's just that in the long run, the majority of people are not going to place top 2 often enough to profit from the current structure. With the structure I've given above, you could still make nearly $50 profit for a $30 investment. Which is still rather nice in my opinion.Sure winning 1st makes up for a loss or two, but it just seems less dramatic and more inviting if the structure was more balanced instead of nearly everything going to 1st.

[jayboogie 0]

Ok, that's just rediculous. Who would even play these things if 1st Place -payed out 75 dollars equaling a $42 profit for a $33 buy-in tournament? If you're playing these 5 Man Sit & Go's, you should be shooting for the win. 3rd place should get squat, why bother playing a tournament if you are paying out 60% of the field

[Konidias 0]

What's ridiculous about more than doubling your money for first place? Obviously you're shooting to win every game you enter, but realistically you're not going to get 1st or even 2nd every time.

[bdc30 0]

First of all, it's not an FCP issue. They don't decide the payments, etc for these tournaments, they're part of a bigger network.Second, if you want to see three places paid out, PLAY THE 10 PLAYER SIT N' GO....It is what it is...If you don't like it, don't play.I for one have found the $10 level to be extremely profitable...

[poker1.com 0]

I consider myself a winning player, but the payout structure for sit n go's on FCP is just ridiculous. You invest the full amount to play, but even second place pays a very small reward for time and money investment put in.I feel that either one of two things should happen with the structure... either1) Reward a little less for first and a little more for second.2) Reward 3 places, paying 3rd the buy-in fee minus the tourney fee.Because let's face it... everyone has bad games where they just aren't hitting any cards. It would be nice to know that I could at least almost break even during one of those bad runs.For example, I was just in a $30 sitngo where I wasn't getting anything for the longest time. I finally get dealt 88 in the big blind and the flop comes out 10 high. So I push all in against the one guy in the hand, who has a load of chips. He calls, and flips over 55. So here I think I have him dominated but then guess what falls on the turn? Right, a 5. So out I go due to bad luck, and I lose $33 in the process, ending up in 3rd place.The fact that you absolutely HAVE to place 1st in order to make any decent profit off of these things, is really unrealistic and quite the put off. Even if you manage to take 2nd place you're getting like $12 profit on a $33 investment, which is only nice if you can constantly place top 2. There's no reason why 1st couldn't be valued for slightly less. Especially if it means that 2nd (or even 3rd) paid out something more satisfactory.Looking at the $33 5 seat sitngo structure, here is the current payout:1 $105.00 2 $45.00 Couldn't it be1 $752 $453 $30or even1 $802 $503 $20It's just that in the long run, the majority of people are not going to place top 2 often enough to profit from the current structure. With the structure I've given above, you could still make nearly $50 profit for a $30 investment. Which is still rather nice in my opinion.Sure winning 1st makes up for a loss or two, but it just seems less dramatic and more inviting if the structure was more balanced instead of nearly everything going to 1st./quote]Why not just pay the first, place all of the money, this make's sense to me.That's All for now,Jonathan, Kerr

[JgTIII 0]

I consider myself a winning player, but the payout structure for sit n go's on FCP is just ridiculous. You invest the full amount to play, but even second place pays a very small reward for time and money investment put in.

If you are going to play SNGs for profit, you need to look at it in terms of ROI% (ROI is calculated as 100 * total profit/total buy-in) and EV (what is your expected value for each tournament.) Don't look at individual tourneys, too much luck involved. Get a large sample.When I was playing a lot of $5.50 SNGs, my ROI% was 32% and my EV was $2.40/hr. If you are playing within your bankroll, going out on the bubble should not bother you too much, just start a new one.If they changed the payout, it would just change where the bubble is located, you would still bubble sometimes. What it could change is your EV as a better player, since the players who are at disadvantage over the long run are leaving with some of the money you would get as a better player.

[dna4ever 2]

For example, I was just in a $30 sitngo where I wasn't getting anything for the longest time. I finally get dealt 88 in the big blind and the flop comes out 10 high. So I push all in against the one guy in the hand, who has a load of chips. He calls, and flips over 55. So here I think I have him dominated but then guess what falls on the turn? Right, a 5. So out I go due to bad luck, and I lose $33 in the process, ending up in 3rd place.

I'm pretty sure this was the most cleverly disguised bad beat post I have ever seen. You sir are a true ninja

[copernicus 0]

I agree, the luck factor in small sng's is horrendous and should be smoothed out. I thnk the payouts should be 20% of the prize pool per person in a 5 player sitngo, and no river cards will be dealt. After the turn betting is over, tc's will be distributed in accordance with the correct probabilities for each hand.

[2bthebest 2]

The payout is 70% for 1st and 30% for second.I see nothing wrong with that, however the op's total profit does not suggest that he is a "winning player".Username Games Played Av. Profit Av. Stake Av. ROI Total Profit dna4everfcp 26 $11 $11 77% $264 2bthebestfcp 55 $4 $7 44% $197 Konidias 43 $1 $16 131% -$40You have a very good ROI, which suggests you cash very well. But, you profit does show that you are not "beating the rake". I think that you probably have lots of 1sts and lots of bubble outs in 3rd.

[dna4ever 2]

The payout is 70% for 1st and 30% for second.I see nothing wrong with that, however the op's total profit does not suggest that he is a "winning player".Username Games Played Av. Profit Av. Stake Av. ROI Total Profit dna4everfcp 26 $11 $11 77% $264 2bthebestfcp 55 $4 $7 44% $197 Konidias 43 $1 $16 131% -$40You have a very good ROI, which suggests you cash very well. But, you profit does show that you are not "beating the rake". I think that you probably have lots of 1sts and lots of bubble outs in 3rd.

QUIT SPYING ON ME, THATS CREEPY!

[2bthebest 2]

QUIT SPYING ON ME, THATS CREEPY!

Just trying to make a point and you had replied in the thread. You have a decent ROI and Total Profit. Maybe you should stop the tilting away at high limit.

[Konidias 0]

The payout is 70% for 1st and 30% for second.I see nothing wrong with that, however the op's total profit does not suggest that he is a "winning player".Username Games Played Av. Profit Av. Stake Av. ROI Total Profit dna4everfcp 26 $11 $11 77% $264 2bthebestfcp 55 $4 $7 44% $197 Konidias 43 $1 $16 131% -$40You have a very good ROI, which suggests you cash very well. But, you profit does show that you are not "beating the rake". I think that you probably have lots of 1sts and lots of bubble outs in 3rd.

Yeah well, I'm a winning player, just not currently at FCP which I just started. =PWhich is why I made this thread, because I'm not having the luckiest week of my life, and it's a lot rougher when I get nothing for 3rd and very little for 2nd.If you win and lose 1 heads up sitngo each, you're losing money. Rake sucks... but I guess that is what the measily bonus is for. I just wish that it wasn't so harsh with 2nd place winnings and that it paid some sort of prize for 3rd.I'm used to Pacific Poker 5 seat sitngo's where it pays out 3 places. I don't often end up in 4th or 5th, so that is profitable for me in the long run. The only problem is Pacific has so many other annoyances that it's made it intolerable to play there. (buggy software, lots of lagging, no multitabling...)Oh and how did you get that information? It's interesting.edit: What I'm trying to say is... the odds aren't very great. I mean think about it like this... would you rather get paid for placing top 3 out of 5, or top 2? The minor drop in profit from winning 1st is easily made up for by the fact that you're not losing you're entire buy-in if you place 3rd. So all the times you place 3rd will be saving you money instead of costing you money.

[2bthebest 2]

Sharkscope

[Konidias 0]

Sharkscope

Thanks. Just checked myself out there again. Doing better.

[EmFactor 0]

I consider myself a winning player, but the payout structure for sit n go's on FCP is just ridiculous. You invest the full amount to play, but even second place pays a very small reward for time and money investment put in.I feel that either one of two things should happen with the structure... either1) Reward a little less for first and a little more for second.2) Reward 3 places, paying 3rd the buy-in fee minus the tourney fee.Because let's face it... everyone has bad games where they just aren't hitting any cards. It would be nice to know that I could at least almost break even during one of those bad runs.For example, I was just in a $30 sitngo where I wasn't getting anything for the longest time. I finally get dealt 88 in the big blind and the flop comes out 10 high. So I push all in against the one guy in the hand, who has a load of chips. He calls, and flips over 55. So here I think I have him dominated but then guess what falls on the turn? Right, a 5. So out I go due to bad luck, and I lose $33 in the process, ending up in 3rd place.The fact that you absolutely HAVE to place 1st in order to make any decent profit off of these things, is really unrealistic and quite the put off. Even if you manage to take 2nd place you're getting like $12 profit on a $33 investment, which is only nice if you can constantly place top 2. There's no reason why 1st couldn't be valued for slightly less. Especially if it means that 2nd (or even 3rd) paid out something more satisfactory.Looking at the $33 5 seat sitngo structure, here is the current payout:1 $105.00 2 $45.00 Couldn't it be1 $752 $453 $30or even1 $802 $503 $20It's just that in the long run, the majority of people are not going to place top 2 often enough to profit from the current structure. With the structure I've given above, you could still make nearly $50 profit for a $30 investment. Which is still rather nice in my opinion.Sure winning 1st makes up for a loss or two, but it just seems less dramatic and more inviting if the structure was more balanced instead of nearly everything going to 1st.

How could you "consider" yourself a winning player? Either you are or you aren't. It's not really a matter of opinion.

[Dr_Shakes 0]

Thats a cool link. I knew I was losing but seeing on a database somehow makes it worse. ureviltwin 18 -$2 $5 -32% -$29 - Ongame x In my defense I have won at limit ring games and just wanted to try something different for a while. Guess I need to read HOH a few more times I will keep telling myself it is variance until I go back to $300 then its back to limit!

[Konidias 0]

How could you "consider" yourself a winning player? Either you are or you aren't. It's not really a matter of opinion.

Consider has multiple definitions... It can also mean "to think carefully about" which is what I meant. After thinking about my play for the past 2 years, and the profit I have made, I think that I am a winning player. If you want the flat truth, I *am* a winning player. As I've won far more than I've ever put in.

[krup24 0]

Sharkscope

krupnugz 31 $17 $13 321% $536 - Ongame LOL it says i'm a shark

[rog 0]

I dont see how anyone could reasonably expect to get paid for beating out 40% of the field.