Ok as for the math, here goes:
STEP 1: 11+1
places 1-4: get step 2 = 55$. So top 20% get 220$ evenly distributed
Compare to 10+1 2 table SnG: top 4 spots get 200$, divided between 1, 2, 3, 4 at different rates.
Discrepancy Step vs Cash: 1st: 55$ vs 80$
2nd: 55$ vs 60$
3rd: 55$ vs 40$
4th: 55$ vs 20$
========> Since for finishing 3rd and 4th you get a good bit extra money vs the cash SnG, its a good deal for most "consistent" performers, as getting into the money is a reasonable proposition, winning at that point is a crapshoot a lot of times.
STEP 2:
Now heres where it gets interesting:
1-4: 215$
5-6: 55$
7: 30$
Compare to 50+5 cash SnG:
1st: 215$ vs 500$ (ouch)
2nd: 215$ vs 300$
3rd: 215$ vs 200$ (ah here we go)
4th: 215$ vs 100$
5th: 55$ vs nothing
6th: 55$ vs nothing
7th: 30$ vs nothing
Again, unless you plan on coughing up 55$ for a cash SNG and plan on finishing first or second, this provides a lot better deal. The problem, however, is a nasty 285$ cut from first (youch).
Etc for the next few steps, except you have to suck out REAL early not to get anything beyond step 2.
Pretty much the same math applies across the board here: A consistent player wont necessarily win every SnG he enters, but more often than not will finish in the top half of the field. As such, these tournaments provide a great opportunity as they dont differentiate too much between the exact places, whereas SnGs, you take a 20% payout difference just between first and second (which at the normal blind structures, is quite the nasty crapshoot a lot of times).
It does seem like buying into step 2 is a very acceptable proposition here though.
Defendant
|