En
Français English
Heads-Up: What are the good payouts for poker tournaments?
2026-06-02 - David POULENARD
Share
his debate about payouts, which appeared in last December's LivePoker, remains as relevant as ever. That's why the editorial team is sharing it with you...

As the world of poker tournaments has evolved, so have payouts. From the original winner-take-all, they've moved to 5%, then 10%, and finally 12% of the field paid, while at the same time, the first in-the-money finishes have become more frequent. Some are even demanding more! To get a clearer picture, LivePoker interviewed two experts!

Poker, like any economic activity, requires creating more wealth and then distributing it as fairly as possible. Tournament poker is a thriving activity, with increasingly large fields and prize pools growing accordingly. The very first WSOP Main Events had only a handful of players, and it seemed only natural to reward the winner. Things have changed considerably since then, with fields now boasting hundreds, even thousands, of players. Payout structures have adapted to pay out more and more players in a more balanced way.

For 50 years, the struggle between those who uphold the status quo, resistant to change, and those who constantly demand greater redistribution has continued. Among these proponents, Philippe Ktorza has long been considered a pioneer. More players paid, with some demanding up to 20% or even 30% of the field, more substantial first-place payouts, and more balanced payout structures, particularly between the winner and eighth or ninth place. These are the main demands of those calling for a more equitable distribution.

The risk is that the top prizes will become less enticing and tournament poker will lose its very essence: the thrill of competition, embodied by the adage "only victory is beautiful," but also a top prize that inspires tens of thousands of players, like the Main Event with its millions of dollars at the final table. To try and shed some light on this, LivePoker interviewed two specialists: Daniel Duthon, a vocal advocate for more balanced payouts, and Apo Chantzis, the owner of Texapoker, who is constantly dealing with player demands!



Daniel Duthon, a seasoned player and ambassador for the Swiss Poker Series, who is very involved in advocating for payout reform, believes that "the share allocated to first place needs to be reduced."

Do you think all tournaments should have the same payout structure, or can diversity be beneficial?

No, absolutely not. It would be a mistake to try to standardize payouts. Major tournaments like the EPT, with buy-ins of €5,300, work very well with their current structures. There's not much to change there. However, tournaments below €300, and even up to €500, should, in my opinion, have a different approach, better suited to the players' profiles and the size of the field.

What would be the ideal payout in terms of distribution and percentage of the field paid, in your opinion?

For tournaments up to €300/€500, a payout of around 18% of players paid seems ideal to me. A minimum x2 multiplier should be guaranteed at the first few tiers, and even more depending on the circumstances, but x2 is, in my opinion, an absolute minimum. Above all, the first-place prize pool needs to be reduced. For a €300 tournament, winning €17,000, €20,000, or €25,000 is already enormous. We can certainly maintain the "dream" factor of a significant first prize while bringing it down to more realistic proportions. In fact, according to the poll I conducted on Facebook, a first-place prize pool of between 9 and 12% seems to be a good balance.

Are the widespread re-entries responsible for some imbalances in payouts?

I don't really share this view. I should also clarify that I'm speaking here in my own name and not as an ambassador. The Swiss Poker Series and FiveBet are also considering ways to improve things. If someone makes 5-7 re-entries, the structure shouldn't compensate. We're not going to pay a player 5 times the buy-in just because they've cashed out seven times. At some point, we have to be realistic. The 2.5 buy-ins mentioned aren't meant to cover all extreme cases, and that's not their purpose.

With higher initial payouts and more players getting paid, aren't we risking dangerously reducing the prizes for the winner and runners-up, which is what makes players dream?

For €300 buy-ins, I think the first prize can be reduced without diminishing its appeal. As I was saying, winning 17,000 or 25,000 for a €300 buy-in is already a dream come true. It doesn't need to go much higher for the tournament to remain attractive. I would also add that there's a real imbalance between first and ninth place, with a gap of up to 10. A ratio of between 1:5 and 1:7, depending on the tournament, would be more appropriate.



Apo Chantzis, founder of Texapoker, the leading tournament organizer in France, says, "With 2.5 times the buy-in, a player can still make a profit by finishing in the money."

What criteria do you use to determine the payouts for the tournaments you organize?

It depends on our objectives to satisfy the players, but also on those of our partners, particularly regarding the percentage of players paid out—it fluctuates between 12.5% ​​and 15%, depending on their preferences. However, everyone agrees on starting payouts at 2.5 times the buy-in.

So, you want to standardize the first ITMs at 2.5 buy-ins, why?

Initially, we started by following what was being done at the time, before realizing that paying out 1.5 or 1.6 times the payouts wasn't sustainable. We gradually encouraged our partners to join us in changing things with a minimum payout of 2 times the buy-in. We then calculated that a 2.5 buy-in would be ideal for redistributing more money to the first ITMs and fostering a healthier ecosystem. The cost of a tournament isn't just the buy-in; there are significant expenses (hotels, transportation, restaurants, etc.), so it's legitimate to pay players better. With this 2.5 times the buy-in, a player can make a profit simply by finishing in the money.

Some players have other demands, such as more paid places, a smaller difference between first and ninth place, etc. But there are also those who are worried about too drastic a reduction in the top prizes. What are your thoughts on that?

Changes need to be implemented gradually to improve things, and reducing the percentage of top prizes is a step in the right direction, especially with the increase in prize pools. The reduction in top rewards is actually quite small, with a decrease of around 10% for the top two or three prizes, which doesn't really change the overall picture, whereas for other players, it makes a big difference, for the better.

Home
News
Favorites
Ranking
Casinos