What sirio11 is basically saying, is that the structure of 2006's WSOP ME was "steeper" than that of 2005. This means that a higher percentage of the prize pool was awarded to the higher finishers - the payouts were more top-heavy.

Now in satellites, the payout is perfectly flat, because everyone who wins, wins exactly the same. In short handed STTs, the structure is a little less flat, but the payouts are still relatively close together in terms of percentages. In MTTs, the payouts become much steeper, but generally are fixed (by an unspoken agreement amongst operators) at a sensible level.

In the both the 2005 and 2006 WSOP ME, the top 10% were paid, with the winner achieving roughly 14% of the prizepool. (2005: 560/5,619 paid, $7.5m for 1st. 2006: 876/8,773 paid, $12m for 1st).

However, the rest of the structure is surprising different. Because of the large number of numbers and figures and percentages, I think this is best illustrated with a graph. The difference will become obvious (I did originally plot thousands of points for the entire top 10%, but it made the graph horribly unreadable).

While the graph may not be perfect, it does show that in 2005, the percentages paid out to the final table and other top placers are distinctly different. While the 1st place finishers were very close (14.2% and 14.5%, but still a difference of 0.3% and $250K in 2006 money), in general the 2006 top placers were significantly better off than their 2005 counterparts. Great.. but what does this mean for the rest of the cashers?

It just does not seem right, if you finish 37th in 2006 you win around the same as if you finish 37th in 2005; but the difference between the number of players was more than 3000 !!! 8773 compared to 5619.

Even more ridiculous is if you finish between 82-90, in 2005 you win $92k but in 2006 you win only $52k, WTF??

Taken from http://sirio11.blogspot.com/2006/08/wsop-me-payout-structure.html.

Everyone else down the line is worse off! In 2005 the final table paid out a total of 43.45% of the money, while in 2006 it was 45.84% of the money available. This may not seem like a lot, but that's actually over $1.6m extra that would have normally been shared out amongst the other top cashers. From 28th place onwards, the payout percentages are significantly lower than that of 2005.

So why are they doing this? Some say it is to keep increasing the size of first prize, and to keep attracting the thousands of internet qualified amateurs, looking for the *big* win. I don't think it can be, since 1st place stayed virtually the same at 14.5% (as opposed to 2005's 14.2%), and in fact everyone up to 28th had higher percentages.

Or is it to better reward the final tablers, who have achieved more by beating a larger field? This seems like the most sensible opinion - because this years tourney was harder (in the sense of having to beat more players), the top top payouts are higher. Unfortunately, this means that everyone else has to suffer...

While this seems like a nice idea, I agree with sirio11. It would be better for everyone if the structure were a little flatter. 1st place won't notice the difference between $12m and $10m, but 50th will sure as heck notice the difference between $100K and $150K.

What does everyone else think?