Column: Do we want more and bigger min-cashes?
After looking at the new payout structure for the European Poker Tour, Barry Carter asks if a bigger percentage of the prize pool in tournaments should be used for minimum cashes?
 |
| Payout changes at the EPT |
This week the European Poker Tour published details of their new payout structure for minimum cashes. They revealed each tournament would pay out between 13% and 15%, and that the minimum cash would always be at least 1.7x the buy-in (So at least €8,400 for an EPT Main Event).
There is nothing particularly groundbreaking about this new structure, but it did get me thinking about the whole concept of min-cashing in tournaments.
Generally speaking tournaments pay out between 10% and 20% of the field (in most cases much closer to 10%).
It seems PokerStars have decided to go down the middle with up to 15%, but do we want even more?
Playing for the number one spot
 |
| Play for the top prize |
The whole point, most of us say, of a tournament is the big score. In fact almost all of the good strategy advice out there tells us that playing to min-cash is a long term losing strategy and we should go for the win. Playing aggressively on the bubble can prove very profitable for the very reason that many inexperienced players vastly overvalue min-cashing.
For this reason, I think a lot of players don't like speaking up about wanting more places to pay out, and bigger min-cashes. There is a stigma to it, it almost suggests that you are the 'bad player' who overvalues simply making it into the money.
We all like to say we are playing for the win and nothing else, but the reality is much different. The reality is that most players want a flatter payout structure. I asked a large number of tournament directors a few years ago and they all said that about 85% of tournaments ended in a deal, which shows how much poker players actually want to be rewarded for coming close to the title, not just for winning it.
Not to mention the pro-heavy One Drop event last year, it was an extreme example of course, but it featured a 1.1x min-cash (For Mike Sexton who cashed for $1,109,333). Although the amounts are in keeping with elite players, such a small min-cash is not what we would conventionally expect from an elite tournament.
More min-cashes, or more for a min-cash?
 |
| Sexton's One Drop min-cash was $1.1 million |
So if we want to see improvements for min-cashers, it leads us to another question. Do we want to win more for a min-cash or do we want to pay a bigger percentage of the field? Both involve taking money from the final table, so which one is better?
The size of a min-cash is usually just under double the buy-in, but in some cases can see a fraction of a return, closer to 1.5x the buy-in. The more min-cashes you have, the lower this amount will be. It is never a popular option, but now and then you do see tournaments where the min-cash doesn't even represent a profit and you only get a small percentage of your buy-in back, so you are actually down on the event.
One of the biggest min-cashes I have seen was the inaugural WSOPE Main Event, which for a £10,000 buy-in paid £27,150 for the min-cash. I was covering this event and it was a tremendously long bubble. Even though it was a pro heavy field, because the min-cash was sizeable, it really slowed the action down.
On the one hand a large min-cash is great, it represents a solid profit, even after travel expenses. But it is harsher, and makes the bubble arduous. This is great if you thrive in bubble situations, but the overall enjoyment of the tournament may suffer.
Keep the recreational players in the game
 |
| Recreational players pride themselves on making the money |
And this is precisely why I favour the smaller min-cash which means more people get paid. We can talk about playing for glory all we want, the reality is for poker to be profitable (for industry staff and professional players) the tournaments need to appeal to recreational players.
Although I personally have always really enjoyed bubbles, most recreational players do not. In fact the mere act of making it into the money, regardless of the amount, is a badge of honour for many recreational players. Not only does it make the tournament more fun, it keeps them in the game longer, which is good news for everyone.
That's why I personally prefer to see a 15%+ payout structure in tournaments, as both someone who works in the industry and also as a recreational player myself. I know the value of taking risks to win the tournament, but as someone who only plays for fun these days, it is nice to know I have a good shot of not going home empty handed at the end of it, and I know a lot of the people you want at your tables feel the same way.
Would you like to see more places make the money, more money for a min-cash or would you like to see a more top-heavy pay structure? Tell us what you think in the comments box.
