The LARGEST Online Poker Tournament - 02/29/04 PartyPoker.com’s NEW “Quarter Million Guaranteed” Sunday No Limit Hold’em Tournament Results
Michael O'Malley/PartyPoker.com
PartyPoker.com’s NEW “Quarter Million Guaranteed” Sunday No Limit Hold’em
Tournament Results
Buy-In $200 + $15
Entrants: 1812
Total Prize Pool $362,400
Places Paid 130
PartyPoker.com’ Saturday tournament drew a field of 1812 players! They
competed for a prize pool of $362,400 with mewhoelse outlasting the field
to claim the 1st place prize of $72,480.
1st:mewhoelse $72,480
2nd:sirio11 $38,776
3rd:kys2000 $28,992
4th:Mellochello $21,744
5th:Des2303 $18,120
6th:Klondyke $14,496
7th:goldfish $10,872
8th:sheetsworld $7,248
9th:JonathanFhal$5,436
10th:youngjames $3,624
11th-13th: $3,261
14th - 17th: $2,899
18th - 20th: $2,536
21st-30th: $2,174
31st-40th: $1,812
41st-50th: $1,449
51st-60th: $1,268
61st-70th: $1,087
71st-80th: $906
81st - 90th: $724
91st - 100th: $543
101st - 110th: $434
111th - 120th: $398
121st - 130th: $362
PartyPoker.com is a charter member of the World Poker Tour. The
anticipated
prize pool for the PartyPoker.com Million III is $3,500,000!!
Details can be found at www.PartyPoker.com
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Daniel Negreanu
That's insane. Poker Stars had few players but first there was $71K.
Party must have taken that flattened payout structure to the extreme.
Actually, second in the PokerStars event was HIGHER than the Party event.
That's odd.
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
arlo payne
> Why was first so small? What did they payout for first like 7%??? LOL.
It was right at 20%
arlo payne
> 03/07/04
> PartyPoker.com’s NEW “Quarter Million Guaranteed” Sunday No Limit Hold’em
> Tournament Results
> Buy-In $200 + $15
> Entrants: 1812
> Total Prize Pool $362,400
> Places Paid 130
>
> PartyPoker.com’ Saturday tournament drew a field of 1812 players!
It sounds great!
With its deep payouts I can see the numbers growing each week. The more
people cash the more you will have returning week after week.
I take my hat off to party on this one.
Linda K Sherman
> On Mar 7 2004 10:34PM, Michael O'Malley/PartyPoker.co wrote:
>
>
>>03/07/04
>>PartyPoker.com’s NEW “Quarter Million Guaranteed” Sunday No Limit Hold’em
>>Tournament Results
>>Buy-In $200 + $15
>>Entrants: 1812
>>Total Prize Pool $362,400
>>Places Paid 130
>>
>>PartyPoker.com’ Saturday tournament drew a field of 1812 players!
>
>
> It sounds great!
> With its deep payouts I can see the numbers growing each week. The more
> people cash the more you will have returning week after week.
> I take my hat off to party on this one.
I wonder how many 2000-player events Howard Lederer or Phil Hellmuth
would have to play to have a 50% chance of making at least one final table.
--
Linda K. Sherman
linsherman [atsign] tampabay [stop] rr [stop] com
John Kerry for President.
Stocks
Pokerstars.
Which will of course dilute some of the earnings for the top tier. This
might be the only thing that is more attractive about PP than PS although
to me it would never be enough to drag me away from PS to play at PP.
The amount of PP fans and posts that come here from that site are insane,
I have never had a good experience there, and prefer the better
competition and if you do well at PS in a tourney you are very well
compensated for making the final tables in their touneys.
Michael O'Malley/PartyPoker.com
> Why was first so small? What did they payout for first like 7%??? LOL.
> That's insane. Poker Stars had few players but first there was $71K.
> Party must have taken that flattened payout structure to the extreme.
> Actually, second in the PokerStars event was HIGHER than the Party event.
> That's odd.
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> www.fullcontactpoker.com
First was 20%. The player's at PartyPoker.com asked for a flatter payout
structure, so that's what they got. You can see the payout structure at:
http://www.partypoker.com/games/tournaments/multi_table.html
Mike Jones
Daniel away BUT manage to keep the tourney entires at this level it
seems ok to me.
Daniel-
Do you think flatter payout structures favor professionals (compared
to average players) more or less than structures tilted toward the
top?
"Daniel Negreanu" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<404c1a3d$0$63456$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> Why was first so small? What did they payout for first like 7%??? LOL.
> That's insane. Poker Stars had few players but first there was $71K.
> Party must have taken that flattened payout structure to the extreme.
> Actually, second in the PokerStars event was HIGHER than the Party event.
> That's odd.
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> www.fullcontactpoker.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 7 2004 9:34PM, Michael O'Malley/PartyPoker.co wrote:
>
> > 03/07/04
> > PartyPoker.com?s NEW ?Quarter Million Guaranteed? Sunday No Limit Hold?em
> > Tournament Results
> > Buy-In $200 + $15
> > Entrants: 1812
> > Total Prize Pool $362,400
> > Places Paid 130
> >
> > PartyPoker.com? Saturday tournament drew a field of 1812 players! They
Grant Peacock
> I wonder how many 2000-player events Howard Lederer or Phil Hellmuth
> would have to play to have a 50% chance of making at least one final table.
Chances of a player picked at random making the final 10: 1/200
Chances of the best player in the field making the final 10: Lets say
1/40
In other words, the best player makes 5 times as many final tables as
an average player? My guess is nobody is that good, particularly
online, but I can see arguments the other way so lets go with it.
So, solving (39/40)^x < 1/2 by fooling around on a calculator, I get x
= 28.
What bugs me is that even if he does make the final table once in his
first 28 tries, 10th does not even pay enough for 28 buyins. You have
to win to make real headway financially.
Henry Estes
>
>On Mar 7 2004 10:34PM, Michael O'Malley/PartyPoker.co wrote:
>
>> 03/07/04
>> PartyPoker.com’s NEW “Quarter Million Guaranteed” Sunday No Limit Hold’em
>> Tournament Results
>> Buy-In $200 + $15
>> Entrants: 1812
>> Total Prize Pool $362,400
>> Places Paid 130
>>
>> PartyPoker.com’ Saturday tournament drew a field of 1812 players!
>
>It sounds great!
>With its deep payouts I can see the numbers growing each week. The more
>people cash the more you will have returning week after week.
>I take my hat off to party on this one.
>
PokerStars would have gone 5 players deeper per their payout structure. First
would have been 23% vs Party's 20%.
thedudeoflife
Matt
> arlo payne wrote...
> >
> >On Mar 7 2004 10:34PM, Michael O'Malley/PartyPoker.co wrote:
> >
> >> 03/07/04
> >> Buy-In $200 + $15
> >> Entrants: 1812
> >> Total Prize Pool $362,400
> >> Places Paid 130
> >>
> >It sounds great!
> >With its deep payouts I can see the numbers growing each week. The more
> >people cash the more you will have returning week after week.
> >I take my hat off to party on this one.
> >
>
> PokerStars would have gone 5 players deeper per their payout structure. First
> would have been 23% vs Party's 20%.
>
> http://www.pokerstars.com/tourney_prize_pool.html
Paradise would have gone 20 deeper (paying 150 spots for 1501+
players), and pays 22.5% to first place. They're more top-heavy at
the final table, but players in spots 11+ all get a little bit more.
On the downside, it would have been a $200/$20 event (effectively)
there, not $200/$15.
http://www.paradisepoker.com/tournaments/multi_table_tournaments.html#payout
If that's Party's "flatter" payout structure, I'd hate to see what the
"unflattened" one looked like. Paying only 7% of the field, with 60%
of the cash going to the final table, is hardly what I'd consider
"flat". Of course, none of the major online sites have anything much
better (Paradise pays 67% to the top 10, Pokerstars 70%!)
I'd love to see something more like 15-20% of the field getting paid
(even if the last 5-10% is just getting their entry back), with only
40-50% of the total prize money going to the final table (and even
there it could be flatter; I see no good reason why 1st place out of
1000+ players is getting 20-30x what 10th place is, other than
tradition). Maybe if I regularly placed in the top 10 in large MTTs
I'd feel differently, though. People keep saying it's the shot at a
big payoff that draws crowds to tourneys, but I for one would be
*more* likely to play if it didn't feel so much like I was just buying
lottery tickets.
Daniel Negreanu
> If the payout structures keep some of the heavy hitting pros like
> Daniel away BUT manage to keep the tourney entires at this level it
> seems ok to me.
>
> Daniel-
>
> Do you think flatter payout structures favor professionals (compared
> to average players) more or less than structures tilted toward the
> top?
It depends on "what kind" of professional you are talking about.
For the everyday grinder looking to squeak into the money and move up
the prize ladder, the flatter payout certainly helps them.
For the other pros looking for a big payday and really go for it, it
hurts them a little I think. Also those players that excel at short
handed play are adversely affected.
The only problem I have with flattening the payout strucutres to
these extremes, is that you are getting too close to making folding
aces before the flop the correct play.
Mike Caro covered this topic years ago about tournaments. It would
make me sick to my stomach to have to fold aces at the final table
because it was a positive EV play. Keep flattening the structures
further, and that situation will arise more and more often. Folding
aces before the flop... I mean man, that just ain't poker anymore you
know what I mean? That's like making the tournament a supersatellite.
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Henry Estes
Yes, both PartyPoker and Paradise pay deeper at most increments than does
PokerStars. Maybe the 9 players/table affected their thinking when paying x
number of tables as opposed to players.
I think that the sites I'm familiar with have done a good job of flattening the
payouts. The two things I would kinda like to see changed are:
1) a position never pays less money as the number of entries increases. Today I
played in a tourney with 307 players. First place paid less than if there had
only been 300 players; actually 334 players were required before first would pay
the same as if only 300 were entered. Why? In good part so ten players could get
their buy-in, plus a little extra, returned.
When the 2004 WSOP final event payout structure was published, I thought that
maybe they were trying to address this. But the structure only shows payouts for
a few exact number of entries, 800, 900, 1000, etc. I know the intent is to pay
deeper and not have a payout for less than the buy-in. It just seems to me that
the more players you have to beat to finish in the money, the more money the
position should pay. At least, not less.
2) A player finishing in the money should get more money than any player
finishing below him gets. Even if just a few bucks.