Too many events at WSOP that reward the bracelet?

[bernie]

Not sure if this has been asked, im sure it has.

I heard there were about 30 'bracelet' events. They haven't always had that many have they? Doesn't this, in a way, diminish the meaning of actually having a bracelet now that it is much 'easier' to attain. You can now attain it in a much lesser event. Especially some of the players who have multiple bracelets even winning multiple in one year?

I think, at most, one bracelet for each discipline would suffice.

Or is this now turning into the poker olympics?

b

[Toro]

I think it probably confuses the casual fan who probably upon hearing that so and so has a bracelet assumes that he has won the big one!

[bernie]

True...

Another thing is, for example, why have a bracelet for both the $10,000 AND the $3,000 (or lesser)no limit event of the same discipline?

b

[Songwind]

Based on the history I read, there have been multiple events since the early 80s, so this is hardly a new thing.

[scotnt73]

i agree. i dont mind them giving out bracelets to winners. but there should be just 1 "the bracelet" for each discipline. maybe gold for all winners but plat for the big winners.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]

I think, at most, one bracelet for each discipline would suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing different this year is the Player of the Year award. Everything is still the same. And they DO award a bracelet for each discipline - a $3,000 buy in NLHE game is different from a $10,000 (I think even the blind/time structure is different, can someone who knows more please chime in?). The problem is for all ESPN fans from last season they never explained this to anyone. The big one is still the big one... but you are right World Series may not be the best way to describe this 30+ day event every year at Binions.

In da club /images/graemlins/club.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on the history I read, there have been multiple events since the early 80s, so this is hardly a new thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not against the multiple events. Im against having multiple events for basically the same type of game. Did those multiple events back then have multiple events for say, no limit holdem? At different buy ins?

The olympic analogy i was leaning toward was in the vein of having 2 types of the same sport in the games. Like 2 100m sprints. 1 for the top guys, then another for the lesser guys. What's the point? (Other than additional revenue for the host casino)

Edit: Wanted to add something.

Now let's say, given the above example, all the track and field events did this. So someone ove the years has won multiple of the 'lesser' events yet hardly wins any of the 'major' ones. The way they advertise, a bracelet is a bracelet. It doesn't matter how you got it or what game you got it in. I think this detracts from the 'big ones' prestige a little.

b

[elwoodblues]

Think of swimming.

Different disciplines:
Free Style, Butterfly, Back Stroke, Breast Stroke, Single style relays, IM (akin to Limit Hold 'em, NL Hold 'em, Razz, etc)

However, there also have different distances for each:
50M, 100M, 200M (10,000 buy-in, 3,000 buy-in). Each requires different skill.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of swimming.

Different disciplines:
Free Style, Butterfly, Back Stroke, Breast Stroke, Single style relays, IM (akin to Limit Hold 'em, NL Hold 'em, Razz, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

This i agree with. Great example.

[ QUOTE ]
However, there also have different distances for each:
50M, 100M, 200M (10,000 buy-in, 3,000 buy-in). Each requires different skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

This i dont. What real different skills are needed between a $3000 buy in no limit holdem event and a $10,000 one? Let's say they have relatively the same amount of entries. Though i will say if one is planned over 5 days and one is only say, 2 days, i would agree a little. But there are many lesser ones that are essentially the same in time length.

b

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
What real different skills are needed between a $3000 buy in no limit holdem event and a $10,000 one

[/ QUOTE ]

If you start with a different number of chips and the blinds move up at different rates then the games are different.

[whiskeytown]

I was under the impression from a couple yrs ago the the bracelet for the Big One was a substantially nicer/more expensive bracelet then the other ones...

but I could be wrong...

RB

[KenProspero]

I'm not sure I see this as an issue.

Firstly, anyone with even a passing knowledge of Poker understands that there are multiple bracelets at WSOP.

Secondly, winning even one of the lesser tournaments is a tremendous accomplishment and for an amateur player is likely to be the highlight of their poker playing life.

Thirdly, I think the fact that there are many bracelet games builds interest in Poker generally and in the other WSOP events specifically -- it's good marketing for Poker.

So, if the downside here is that someone who is uninformed thinks that a WSOP bracelet means more than it actually does, it seems to me that there is little downside here.