Poker Superstars Invitational - What Am I Missing Here?

[Chazbot2000]

Fox is advertising this upcoming tournament called the Superstars Invitational. 8 really good players like Chip Reese, Brunson, Cloutier, etc. Buy in is $400,000.

O.K., if you're a pro, what are you doing paying $400,000 to play against other pros??? There's no dead money in this event, so this has got to be a losing proposition. I can't believe a backer with half a brain would stake them either. I've got to me missing something here. Is the buy in paid for with ad revenue or something?

[darcythepug]

The tournament sponsor gave them all $25,000 each just to play -- don't know if Fox put up any money as well or not

[ismisus]

Who doesn't want to play on National Television for the rights of being the best player? This is a major ego boost.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no dead money in this event, so this has got to be a losing proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your conclusion is incorrect, and simply does not follow.

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no dead money in this event, so this has got to be a losing proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your conclusion is incorrect, and simply does not follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how. Now, they are getting 25K each, kind of an inverse rake, so if you are taking that into account, it's a good point. However, assuming that it is actually *possible* to rank these players in order, the "worst" 2 or 3 would by definition be making a -EV play to sit down in this game if there was no overlay. If there was a fee, it might in fact be -EV for everyone, given that whatever edges there are are probably very slim.

All that said, this doesn't take into account the 25K or the fact that there is value in getting ones face on TV in the world of endorsement deals.

Anyway, all valid arguments, but just saying "no you are wrong" isn't very edifying; why bother?

[TylerD]

Just because they're all pro's it doesn't mean that they are all equally talented...

[Chazbot2000]

I agree with you, but my argument is the difference is very slight and there are a lot easier ways for the best player in the field to win money other than to jump into a pit of piranas.

If everyone has the exact same ability in this matchup, the payout is +EV thanks to the $25k everyone gets, but the variance is massive. I don't think the variance you incur overcomes the modest +25k EV. You would have to assume a very big difference between your ability and those of your opponents to justify participating and I don't think there is a convincing argument that this is the case.

Maybe everyone there is playing for the challenge, pride, recognition, etc. Those motivations just seem like very odd motivations for professional poker players.

[dogmeat]

I don't know anything about this tournament, but not everybody is like David Sklansky, who wants to always find tables with worse players than himself (and I'm not knocking that either, as that is what I want). However, many of the best players in the world play together, I have seen as many as 6 players with WSOP championships at the same table. Guys that have "Got Game" like to play, and if it is against a bunch of other champs, on tv, with some bonus money throw-in in, great.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[$DEADSEXE$]

Reese,Brunson,Ivey,Negreanu regularly play in a weekly ring game against mainly top rpo's in the world...average pot's are 80,000 to 500,000.

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
Reese,Brunson,Ivey,Negreanu regularly play in a weekly ring game against mainly top rpo's in the world...average pot's are 80,000 to 500,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

And given the world of poker endorsement deals is probably just getting started, being involved in something like this probably pays for itself...

[drewjustdrew]

Exactly. Book deals, websites, online poker, movie advisory roles, etc. Millions in "dead money".

[chrisdhal]

See:

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14151

for the whole story behind it. Sounds like an interesting format.