calcutta percentages
- Thread starter 2andOUT
- Start date
That doesn't seem too far out of line compared to what I'm used to seeing at tournaments around here.
Table Top Joe
Registered
Those numbers seem fair to me.
I just did a search on payout percentages for four places and got very similar spreads. Usually, it's 50/25/15/10 for poker tournaments. Oftentimes, I've noticed in pool tournaments that have a calcutta, it's not unusual to pay out fewer places than the actual event.
In sum, these payout percentages appear to be very consistent with what I see in pool and in poker.
In sum, these payout percentages appear to be very consistent with what I see in pool and in poker.
numbers look solid. they always vary with people and location. looks consistent with what I have seen.
:thumbup:
Seems close, unless the guy who won is best friends with the TD, but 40/30/20/10 also works and is a little more friendly dollar wise to 2nd and on. But egos' and 50% help braggin' rights....
Seems close, unless the guy who won is best friends with the TD, but 40/30/20/10 also works and is a little more friendly dollar wise to 2nd and on. But egos' and 50% help braggin' rights....
Last edited:
I run a weekly local tournament. I do the payouts as follows: I pay one spot for every 4 people in it. Say there are 16 people one week, I pay 4 spots. 1st:40%, 2nd:30%, 3rd: 20%, 4th: 10%.
I have never really cared for top heavy payouts. I don't believe they are fair, and don't really promote others to come back. Let's say you play "John" first round and lose to him. You go all the way through the losers bracket to play in the finals. In the finals, you lose on the hill, and your opponent slopped out on the hill. How do you like him getting paid twice or more than what you do for slopping out and only having to beat about half the guys you had to? Why should one match be worth twice what the next payout is?
The only real reason I see to have it top heavy is to advertise a large first place payout....basically to "con" as many as possible to chase after that 1st place prize. Which, really, is rather ridiculous because more often than not the top two are splitting anyways, whether you know about it or not.
I have never really cared for top heavy payouts. I don't believe they are fair, and don't really promote others to come back. Let's say you play "John" first round and lose to him. You go all the way through the losers bracket to play in the finals. In the finals, you lose on the hill, and your opponent slopped out on the hill. How do you like him getting paid twice or more than what you do for slopping out and only having to beat about half the guys you had to? Why should one match be worth twice what the next payout is?
The only real reason I see to have it top heavy is to advertise a large first place payout....basically to "con" as many as possible to chase after that 1st place prize. Which, really, is rather ridiculous because more often than not the top two are splitting anyways, whether you know about it or not.
This looks like tourny payout percentages, not calcutta. Paying less than 50% to 1st place in the calcutta would pretty much kill your top bids in my experience.
Good catch, my mistake! IF we had calcuttas, I would pay less spots, but still not too top heavy.
Looked ok to me. I think calcuttas should be top heavy. They are for the gamblers not necessarily the players. Its pretty sad when top picks of the field go for X dollars and the calcutta pays so deep it cant cover at least 2X to the winner. Its sorta like horse racing where the focus is on Win/Place/Show. IMO
As a player that is bottom of the food chain I like to play in places with calcuttas where I can win 10x what my expected cost for myself in the calcutta will be. If your one of the top players I would expect 3x minimum if you win.
As a player that is bottom of the food chain I like to play in places with calcuttas where I can win 10x what my expected cost for myself in the calcutta will be. If your one of the top players I would expect 3x minimum if you win.