Tournament makeover

I think the poker tournament circuit needs a makeover. Although Im not in any kind of position to see this through, maybe some influential people that post on this site will agree with me and help me out.


My suggestion is that we as poker players need to pick 4 tournaments to be"majors" just like golf has. these tournaments make up the "grand slam of poker"


I suggest we could kick this off with the WCOOP, then the US poker championship, followed by the World Poker Open, and finally the WSOP deciding the World Champion.


However heres the catch. I feel that because of the huge fields at the WSOP the world championship is decided on luck more than skill. I back this statement up by the last 4 world champions. None of which are considered "big hitters" in my book.


So I suggest that the first three events of the grand slam be events open to anyone, however in order to play for the World Championship in the WSOP you must place in the top 50 in any of the first 3 events.


This will give the better players 3 chances to prove they are worthy of playing in the WSOP, and will also acheive the goal of allowing the best players to play for the World Championship on a limited field.


Any other suggestions/opinions welcome,


Ryan

I agree with most everything that you say. However, what you want to happen may actually be happening with what is now known as the World Poker Tour. The first $10,000 buy-in tournament was just completed at The Bellagio. It was a great success and appeared to be very professionally done.

can't take away the open nature of the WSOP. maybe hold another event along with these 4 and limit IT to the top 50 (or anybody who placed in the money, or whatever) in each event.

Because of the idea that ANYONE can enter & win. Poker tournaments are unique in that it's possible for anybody to compete against the very best in the world. If you limit the WSOP to "top tourney pros", many of whom are repulsive filth whose greatest talent is hustling up a buyin[see Ungar, Stuart], public & media interest in poker will disappear overnite.


BTW, Chris Ferguson ain't a "big hitter" in tournament poker????

It wouldn't be limited to top tourney pro's. Anyone who wanted to compete for the title just has to accomplish one thing. Place in the top 50 of any of the other 3 tournaments.


Why should just anyone be allowed to compete for the championship? It isn't allowed in any other sport. You can't enter the olympics at will. Why? Because everyone would do it and you would have people getting lucky here and there winning olympic medals they really don't deserve.


And I think creating some sort of leauge like this would actually help bring in corporate sponsorships and media attention.


Also, I don't really know much about Ferguson, and am in no place to judge his talent, but you can correct me if im wrong, the guys only won like one major title.

Actually, this is a great question: How Did the WSOP get so big? Here's my speculation.


In the beginning it was a gathering of high limit players, and the tournaments were secondary and relatively unimportant. But Amarillo Slim won the first $10,000 buy-in. (I believe there were only eight players and Doyle Brunson, who was the chip leader, cashed out before the tournament was finished.) Anyway, Slim being the self promotor that he is, used this little win to promote himself as the world's greatest gambler. Since he was always good at getting publicity, he also began to get publicity for the tournament.


After a few years, interest began to form about the tournament, Brunson won it twice in a row and produced his book. This formed more publicty. Gambling Times magazine and the old Poker Player newspaper started to feature it and the tournament became a major event among poker players.


In the late 1980s and 1990s Jim Albrecht and Jack McClellan took it over and they began to make the tournament more accessible for all players with sattellites and changed the emphasis from the side games to the tournaments. Plus, Jim, with support from Jack Binion, worked year long to get publicity for the tournament nationwide. With this the tournament became a spectacular success and the winner of the big one is considered our world champion.


That's my quick take.

Actually, Moss won the first freezeout, in '71. He had been "voted" the winner in '70. Slim won in '72, and according to his book, Doyle got sick and Slim & Puggy allowed Doyle to cash out.


I agree w/the rest of your comments, and would add that the books of Alvarez, Spanier, & Holden publicized the WSOP enormously in Europe, as well as here.

"Why should just anyone be allowed to compete for the championship? It isn't allowed in any other sport. You can't enter the olympics at will. Why? Because everyone would do it and you would have people getting lucky here and there winning olympic medals they really don't deserve."


There is 0% chance that an unknown off the street could win a major sporting event today, due to the competition, training levels, and money req'd/invested. I guess you could count Frances Ouimet back in the 1913 US Open, but sports were a little different back then. Buster Douglas was a well known veteran pro when he knocked out Tyson. When an 'unknown' wins a PGA event, he's a pro, albeit usually a struggling one.


Putting up $10K or winning a satellite doesn't weed the field enough? If you want to make sure that a highly skilled player always wins the WSOP, simply change the game from NLHE to PLHE, NL5S, or best off all, NL27. Wouldn't matter how big the fields were, Billy Baxter or Howard Lederer would be much higher faves in a Deuce tourney, than TJ or Chan are now.


And even with a top 50 req'ment, you'd still get unknowns winning; remember Steve Kaufman's run a couple years ago.


Ferguson prolly has more final tables and money finishes at the WSOP the last three years than anyone else, including three wins[NLHE, Stud, Omaha8]. He wears the three bracelets linked as a hatband. He's won many smaller tourneys in Cali over the last decade. He's one of the big boys. I don't believe he plays on the side at all.

"Why should just anyone be allowed to compete for the championship? It isn't allowed in any other sport. You can't enter the olympics at will. Why? Because everyone would do it and you would have people getting lucky here and there winning olympic medals they really don't deserve"


i didn't read the rest of the thread yet, but i had to respond to this. are you serious???


A) not everyone would rush out to enter the olympics, if they were open to whoever. the nature of poker is different than that of any athletic event in the olympics. in poker, you win SPECIFICALLY and CATEGORICALLY because others lose. the competition is intrinsic to the game. you can't have a high scoring poker game. there is no individual merit to a poker player. i can't make great laydowns by myself.


B) so what if everybody entered? it would only make the olympics longer and funnier watching pure amateurs compete against superior pros. nobody who didn't deserve to win a medal in an olympic event would stand the smallest iota of a chance.


C) the difference between great players and really good players is so much less pronounced than in other competitive arenas. this is because the 'luck' factor of poker can have such short term effect to neutralize the 'chasm of skill' that separates the fish from the sharks. this is why tournament wins don't mean as much as olympic medals, or super bowl rings, or whatever.


having a tournament of champions style event that is only open to top winners in other specific open events is a good idea, and would be a great event to figure out who is the best. but, i'd rather make a lot of money playing poker against really horrible people who don't know how to play but plop down their $10,000 in a tournament because of its prestige and the opportunity to test their mettle against the best, than to be known for being better than the top names, but having to play tough, brutal games against the hardest lineup imaginable. this is where game selection come in.

Ryan posts : "I think the poker tournament circuit needs a makeover".


Babe thinks the "poker tournament players" need a makeover!. Ferguson, for one, needs a haircut!


Image is everything.....Play good, look good...like the Babe!

don't begrudge a cowboy his flowing locks, Babe-y! though, i agree with you. poker players (and gambling types in general) have some pretty ugly sense of style. then again i have a pretty different view on style anyways, and i think MOST people in general could use a bit of a style wake-up.

"There is 0% chance that an unknown off the street could win a major sporting event today, due to the competition, training levels, and money req'd/invested".


Its just like Jesse May says in "Shut Up and Deal," if you give a monkey a typewriter and let it start bangin away eventually it will spell a couple words, if you give a million monkeys typewriters and let them start banging away for infinity, eventually one of them is gonna type a whole shakespeare novel. Or something like that.

"nobody who didn't deserve to win a medal in an olympic event would stand the smallest iota of a chance."


See above reply to Bill.


"having a tournament of champions style event that is only open to top winners in other specific open events is a good idea, and would be a great event to figure out who is the best. but, i'd rather make a lot of money playing poker against really horrible people who don't know how to play but plop down their $10,000 in a tournament because of its prestige and the opportunity to test their mettle against the best, than to be known for being better than the top names, but having to play tough, brutal games against the hardest lineup imaginable. this is where game selection come in."


My whole point is this, in the first 3 events the good players would be making a lot of money by playing against worse players. However, the World Championship shouldn't be about making money, but rather about determining the best player. Any serious poker player would take the world title over the 2 mill. I know I would. Therefore the world championship SHOULD be about beating the hardest lineup imaginable instead of making money.


Ryan

you seem to miss the point.


if any no-name somehow entered the olympics and won a medal, he/she should have been there in the first place. i can't get a 'lucky' vault and shoot 50m over the world record and walk away with a 'fluke' medal. the laws of physics are a lot harsher than odds and people drawing to 2-outers. you can't be an overwight, sluggish, 2-packs-of-pallmalls-a-day-smoking FAT HUMP (as joeybitch would put it) and walk into the olympics and get lucky. not going to happen. the WSOP is different. and this is what attracts the soft money, which attracts the big timers. the WSOP wouldn't be the same without this option. the bigtime pros wouldn't bother playing a tournament where there is virtually no dead money because all the players are so tough to bust. the huge overlay of dead $$ is what makes the WSOP what it is today, and why the bankrolled pros play, in spite of all the complaints against the management of binion's.

poker is poker.what you see is what you get.lets all look like brittny sp. or pokerbabe. wheres the fun of poker and not some new fad?

"Any serious poker player would take the world title over the 2 mill. I know I would"


you are crazy my friend. give me $2 million any day, over a WSOP bracelet. it would be nice to have both, but i'd way rather have the $$.


also, your response to Bill above is a load of crap. the laws of physics and probability allow the monkies to type shakespeare. it is within the realm of the capabilities of a monkey to hit a key on a typewriter, this is the physical limitation which allows your monkies to type. the same does not hold true for walk-ons at the olympics. these are sports where only the top competitors who have trained to become physically and emotionally and mentally prepared can win a medal. there is no fluke in probability that will allow some schmo off the street to win a hurdles event. it is simply not going to happen. and if it does, then that person deserves to be called an olympic medalist, and should have been entered in the contest in the first place. this is not the same as the WSOP where the best hand changes from deal to river. fat slugs can sit around all day and draw out on better players. this is the key difference between the Olympics and the poker tournaments.

Remember the Australian speed skater? He won on a total fluke even though he was not an elite athlete. Many commentators said, or practically said, that he really didn't deserve to be there. His fluke was being born in Australia.


'Course, that doesn't mean baggins is wrong; just that analogies are not always the best way to argue things.


Mojay

i don't remember the australian speed skater. tell me more. i have to assume that if he won an event, it was because he deserved to win.

He won because he was so slow, he kept ending up in last place an eighth of a lap behind the competition. Twice (or was it 3 times) in a row, the fast racers fell RIGHT before the finish line, and he cruised into the next round and then finally the medal. He won because he was lucky through and through. He was lucky to even be at the Olympics, he was lucky to advance, and he was lucky to win.


Mojay

These things can and do happen, remember the 1980 us hockey team. What if a thousand AAU basketball teams entered the olympics every year, its possible for one of them to get lucky.


Or Joe Shmo from New Orleans entered the bob sled, and the top competiters all BONK.


Or the tenth best US gymnast who wouldnt have origanlly gone because only the 6 best gymnast can go, decides hey its open to anyone, and she or he has the performance of their life when it all counts.


Or what if 600 lbs Albert decides hey im fat but i can throw the shot put so ill enter and all 2000 of his fat friends from his favorite internet site enter, and one of them gets a lucky couple throws in.


There are plenty of sports where an unknown wouldn't have a chance, but there all also plenty of sports where regulars could win under the right circumstances, and if you have millions of regular people entering the olympics every four years a few will slip throw the cracks.


About the Austrialian guy, it was in short track speed skating, and we in the US probably have thousands of club speed skaters that were as good or better than this guy. He only made it to the olympics because Austraila doesnt have a strong speed skating program. What if all our club skaters went to the olympics every year?

"Or the tenth best US gymnast who wouldnt have origanlly gone because only the 6 best gymnast can go, decides hey its open to anyone, and she or he has the performance of their life when it all counts"


if the performance of their life earns a gold medal, then they deserve it. how exactly would you determine that this person was tenth best when they could give a gold-medal winning performance?


in regards to the australian speed skater, he obviously was good enough NOT to fall when the others did. if he is the best australia has, then he deserves to be there.


as far as the fat guy and the shotput, well, why shouldn't a guy who can toss a shotput further than the best BE the best? why does it matter if he can perform in the area he is competing in?


it is highly unlikely that the events you cite could ever happen. if they did, i still think the person who performs the best in their field should win, no matter if they 'deserve' to based on their athletic status. who is to say what is a fluke in matters of physical ability?

"how exactly would you determine that this person was tenth best when they could give a gold-medal winning performance?"


Because in the US, events like gymnastics and boxing have qualifying events where one has to win there way on the olympic team. Im not positive about the gymnastics but I believe the team is picked at the US Nationals and the top 6 finishers make up the olympic team.


"if he is the best australia has, then he deserves to be there"


The olympics are for the best athletes in the world, IMO, not just the best athletes per country. The US has tons of athletes that are right at the bubble of making the olympic team but for some reason or another don't make it, but they are still better than some other countries athletes.


"as far as the fat guy and the shotput, well, why shouldn't a guy who can toss a shotput further than the best BE the best? why does it matter if he can perform in the area he is competing in?"


My point wasn't that it was just ONE fat guy but 1000 fat guys. In the olympics if there are 8 people competing in your event, then the best in that event has a huge advantage to win it. However if there are 25,000 in that event there is a lot of room for upsets. Its kind of like the NCAA tournament. If it was limited to the top 8 ranked regular season teams then the best team would just about always win the championship. However, since 64 teams are in it you can and do see many upsets.


"it is highly unlikely that the events you cite could ever happen." "who is to say what is a fluke in matters of physical ability?"


A fluke is Buster Douglas, the 80 US hockey team, the Australian speed skater, Roland Gardner, these things can and do happen. And the more competeters you allow in one event, the more room you give for flukes and upsets to happen.

"The olympics are for the best athletes in the world, IMO, not just the best athletes per country"


you are simply wrong. there are other competitions for this. the olympics is for each country to be represented by its athletes.


i simply don't see how anything can be called a fluke where athleticism comes into play. if you can physically perform better than the rest in you field, you are the winner, pure and simple f*** the whiners who are having an off day.

"the whiners who are having an off day"


That statement "an off day" in itself defines a fluke. The best is having an off day. If Tyson fought Douglas 99 more times he'd probably win all 99. That means Tyson was having an off day when he lost, and Douglas' victory was a "fluke."


If the race that the Australian speed skater won was ran 99 more times he wouldn't win one, unless the others fell down. Thus making it a "fluke".


"if you can physically perform better than the rest in you field, you are the winner"


Thats true but, my original argument about the WSOP wasn't about who was the winner, but who was the best.


Michael Jordan once said in an interview that he was playing his 12 year old son at one on one and was letting him keep the score tied. MJ knew he could win at any time so when it was tied he let his son have the ball on game point and his son threw up a prayer shot and it went in.


It is clear that his son was the winner, but it was a fluke victory, as it is clear his son is not as good a B ball player as MJ.


Ryan