Think about this for a minute

In regards to the post below about the title vs. 2 mill. Everyone on this forum including myself overlooked 1 important fact.


If you were in a position to give up the 2 mill for the title. You would have to be head up at the final table. With this being so you would still get 2nd place money.


So now for a new poll.


Who would take 2nd place money and the title over the 2 mill and no title.


I would,


Ryan

I thought about it give me the money (Thank-you very much) and I'll polish your bracelet for you. Or perhaps hire someone to polish it instead.


Jimbo

If I didn't win the title, wouldn't want the bracelet... so I'll take the $2 mill (in full, no partial amounts)

If you are a professional, would you maybe see more income down the road from a title? The second place money plus the title should be a no-brainer for those who make a living at the game, doing things besides playing. IE: David, Mason, Ray,Lee, etc.

If you are an amature that got somewhat lucky, then take the money.

Does anyone know if there is any other future earning potential from gaining a title?

A few months back I was at a final table in a NL tourney. There were 4 of us and we were even in chips. Someone offered a deal to split the money at about 6.5k. Money ranged from 10k to 4k for 4th. The deal didn't happen because 2 of the players were arguing over the trophy. Sure it looked nice but it was a glass plaque (maybe worth $100). I didn't care in the least about the trophy. I wanted 1st place but I realized the blinds were big enough that the winner was who happened to hit a hand or two so I was happy splitting it all up.


So I will take the 2 million and you can have the 1.1 million and the title /images/smile.gif


Ken Poklitar

ohKanada@hotmail.com

Just so I understand:


Option 1) $1,000,000 plus title.


Option 2) $2,000,000


Either way, I'd instantly retire from playing poker as a career. With option one, even after paying taxes and tipping, with reasonably safe diversification I'd earn $70,000 per year from my nestegg. Option two, $140,000 per year. We're talking for life here. Option two is the no- brainer choice for me.


I guess it's like Rick says. The value of the title for each of us will be affected by some function of current bankroll and earn potential.


Tommy

Tommy basically supplied my answer...although I'd keep playing for fun.


I'll take the cash and early, comfortable retirement.


Mojay

"...as a function of earn potential and bankroll..."


i guess that, since im pretty broke right now, the extra cash would be nice. and i don't know how long it would take me to earn the extra $$million with my earn potential. id way rather be a no-namer with $2million and (presumably) the skill to beat the bigger games with my much bigger bankroll, as opposed to being recognized in the bigger games and having to work that much harder to beat them.


the bracelet means very little to me.

Ryan,


I'm going to respond to things that you've said in other threads in this thread, as I think my message has a better chance of getting read here. Some things that you've said:


But, if you are a good enough poker player you WILL have your financial freedom, so take the title.


If you are a "good enough" poker player it will take you something like twenty years to earn that $2 million, and you probably won't have achieved financial freedom unless you've also invested wisely. I've been a $30/60 pro for about two months, and if everything continues as it's been for those two months, I still won't have financial freedom, because I blow too much money on sports memorabilia. /images/smile.gif If I had $2 million, I could invest it such that I'd have the financial freedom to do what I want with my time now, not in twenty years. One million might and might not cut it. Two million would. I'm taking the money.


It'd also be nice to say to everyone who doubted that poker was a true profession, "I was the best in the world at what I do, what have you ever won, a free mouse pad and a couple pens for your desk."




There are a number of problems with what you say here. The fact that poker has a world championship doesn't make it a "true profession." The fact that a small number of people make their living at it does. Is poker your "true profession"? Do you want it to be? Is there a world welding championship? Is welding not a "true profession"?


The fact that someone wins the main event at the WSOP does not make him the greatest player in the world. Sure, it gets him some name recognition, some money, maybe some respect, but I would guess that the only person who thinks that Robert Varkonyi is the greatest player in the world is Robert Varkonyi's mother, and even she isn't sure. The problem with poker tournaments is that they are not structured to see who the best players are. They are structured to be over in a certain amount of time. In the case of your local Wednesday night tournament, they are structured to take about four hours for the very good reason that a large percentage of the participants have to go to work in the morning. In the case of the main event at the WSOP, it is structured to take five days. The blind structures in all cases increase fast enough that luck starts to win out over skill. I would guess that to have a 50% chance of determining who the best player really is, a tournament would have to be structured to take something like two or three months. Nobody is going to sit through that.


I am not convinced that a poker tournament is the best way to determine a world champion, but I don't have any better suggestions. I am quite sure that if you want to determine who the best poker player in the world is, you should not use a single game to do so. It should at the least be a mixed event, and I would suggest HOSE, but that would be open to debate.


Even better, I'd suggest that a new game be developed for each year's championship. I think that the hallmark of a truly great player is adaptability. There are a lot of so-called professional poker players who play nothing but limit hold'em. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think the fact that they can only play one game keeps them from being truly great poker players. $30/60 stud/8 recently became popular at my local card room. The game isn't going as much as it had been, but for a while there it was quite juicy. A lot of good players didn't capitalize on the situation because they're only hold'em players. I was able to cash in because I had played the game some before and read Ray Zee's book about 20 times. I'm not going to say I'm a great player, but I have won a lot of money in that game.


Now to get where I'm going with all this, you know how in a home game, someone will call out some crazy set of rules for something, and you'll just play it? That, I think would be a good thing to do for a championship event. Have someone, Mike Caro or David Zanetti (heh) or whoever, develop a poker variant that no one has seen before. The rules, which would have to be reasonably simple, would be kept secret and then explained to everyone, oh, ten minutes or so before the event, and then everyone would sit down and play. Everyone would be on an equal footing, as no one would be an expert in this game. That, I think, would be a good championship event. This is an idea for which I am expecting zero support. /images/smile.gif


The participants in the WSOP are not, I think, overly concerned with determining who the best player is. A lot of people enter for the faint chance that they might emerge as world champion. I think that most of the pros who enter do so not because of the title, but because of the dead money. They are getting (or think that they are getting) an overlay, and that's their motivation. If I were to enter the main event, it would be primarily for a shot at the title/bracelet, but I'd have to be in a position where I wouldn't miss $10k very much. I don't foresee this happening any time soon.


When Amarillo Slim won the big one in 1972 (besting a field of eight if memory serves), he did the talk show circuit. Most of the guys who win don't. They're not interested in the fame. I'm not sure whether I am or not.


I'd like to win the world championship some day, but being able to shove it in other people's faces is not among my reasons.


The fact that with the $2 million I would have enough mad money to enter the big one every year for the rest of my life is not insignificant. I could win the title anyway.


What would you do w/ the money? Buy a whole bunch of shit you dont NEED.


Yeah, but I like buying shit I don't NEED. I don't NEED a bracelet either. I don't NEED fame. There are perhaps twenty people in the whole world who I really care what the hell they think of me. None of them are poker players, and I don't think that any of them would give my poker playing any more legitimacy than they do now if I were to win a world championship.

i love your idea of having a new poker game introduced for the championship.