Bluffing in the WSOP

[bomblade]

Last year, when I watched the 2003 WSOP, I thought it looked like a lot of pros weren't adjusting their game for the players they were playing against. I have noticed a lot of good players in games at the places I play, haven't adjusted their game for what the game is today. This year though, watching the first 2 hours of the Main Event at the WSOP, I was stunned to see some of the play by certain people. Negreua in particular. Although he did say after he got knocked out that he didn't play well, and that you just can't bluff these guys, I think it should have been something he knew during the game. Because I will not name anyone specific, I can say some negative things here. In every table they showed, I couldn't believe how amateurish the players seemed. Even in the hands not in the televised table, where we didn't get to see the whole cards, I thought the players had some pretty obvious tells. I don't know about the numbers, but I'll take a stab at this. Out of the 2600 that were in the Main Event, I'd say 1000 got in by internet satellites. I'd say another 500, at least, got in by other satellites. You had a lot of players that aren't very good. You can very rarely bluff a bad player. Yet, I saw a lot of bluffing going on, and a lot of players losing their chips because of it. Hellmouth went nuts seeing some of the fish hands people played. Why did some of the best pros in the world, not adjust their game still to the new world of poker? I hope by next year, at the WSOP, we either don't have so many amateurs, or the best adjust their game to fit the new game. I'd go into more detail and more points to support my statements, but its 3:30am. I would rather comment on other's comments, if there are any.

[The4thFilm]

The most amateurs the better odds that Hellmuth whines, so they're crucial.

[ohgeetee]

IMO, winning a satellite or super satellite is more of a showing of skill than putting up 10k.

most of the free supers online you have to win 2 tournaments to get the buyin, or 1 huge ass tournament.

at the wsop, you are putting up like 2k for a 1 in 9(10?) shot at a buyin a lot of times with pros just looking to make a quick 10k.

I think the WSOP should move to a prelim type of event, where you have to win a major tourney to get in, or something along those lines, and possibly include some "internet majors" as well.

Only bad thing about poker right now is that its kinda like how the NFL started out. Theres lots of different companies all claiming to host world championships, etc. Yes, we recognize the WSOP as the big one, but it would be better if there were some sort of structure behind the scenes that tied all of hte tourneys together, like cardplayers leaderboard, but official.

[TomCollins]

Let the WSOP Champions tournament be for the pros. We NEED the WSOP to keep its "ANYONE CAN WIN" slogan. Cry me a river if you don't get to see good tv. We need Matt Hagin more than we need Phil Hellmuth. We need thousands of them pouring their buyins to feed us. Without them, we are left to fight each other, but with them, its like shooting fish in a barrel. Sure a few of them catch lightning in a bottle and win big, such as Ted Lawson, but if they COULDN'T win and COULDN't get on TV, do you really think there would be so much money in poker right now?

The tournament is getting huge, and possibly too big to manage (how many weeks would it take if there were 10k or 20k players). The WSOP must exist as the mirage that every home game player strives for. We need it in their reach.

Your qualifier idea may have some legs, but I would not want it to be near as strict. Harrahs, since they have locations everywhere, could easily raise the buy in, and impliment their own regional satelite system. Basically make it like ACT I-III's at Foxwoods, but across the entire country (are they worldwide at all?). Send them to regional events ahead of time, make it like the World Series with playoffs. But in the end, the WSOP must be an ANYONE CAN WIN event. We need the dead money, not just in the tournament, but in poker in general.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
The most amateurs the better odds that Hellmuth whines, so they're crucial.

[/ QUOTE ]


you spelled "wins" wrong.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The most amateurs the better odds that Hellmuth whines, so they're crucial.

[/ QUOTE ]


you spelled "wins" wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

you must have failed stats

[rjc199]

I was thinking this same thing hearing Negreanu talk. If I learned anything from party poker tournaments it is to never bluff in the early rounds. The fish will call with king high if they have to. They should have waited until the blinds started to increase to do their bluffing.

They also should have learned not to slow play. Slowplaying was an epidemic on those two episodes last night. Why slowplay against amateurs and fish? Just bet, they love to call!

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The most amateurs the better odds that Hellmuth whines, so they're crucial.

[/ QUOTE ]


you spelled "wins" wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a larger field increase his chances of winning? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[West]

I really disagree with the idea of forcing players to jump through eighteen hoops just to get a shot at playing against the "names". II'm not sure if that's exactly what you're getting at, but if they're so damn good, they can play against anybody. And IMHO, one of the reasons for the extreme surge in popularity of the game is definitely the fact that Chris Moneymaker or anyone else can win the buy in and start on equal footing with Johnny Chan, Phil Hellmuth and everyone else. Sure, if they have to increase the buy in from 10k to 25k, then fine, do it. But the vast majority of the entrants qualifed by some kind of satellite; the percentage that simply bought their way in was small.

[West]

Just don't make John Doe jump through a single hoop that Phil Hellmuth doesn't have to jump through too.

[$DEADSEXE$]

Instead of changing any event the WSOP could simply add a event with a higher buy-in...$20,000,30,000 etc. WSOP Tourney of Champions ala WPT.
All the winners in the prior WSOP events would get a free buy-in along with their bracelet.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
The most amateurs the better odds that Hellmuth whines, so they're crucial.

[/ QUOTE ]


you spelled "wins" wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a larger field increase his chances of winning? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


i dunno, it was a joke. anyway, it increases his EV for sure.

[bomblade]

What hoops am I asking anyone to jump through? I don't understand. What should Hellmouth do that other's do? Play in satellites? Why? He can afford the buy-in. I do agree that it'd be nice if they came up with a tournament of champions deal. That if they turned poker more into a "league". I mean, it would only be the tournament circuit.

[holman3rd]

[ QUOTE ]
I really disagree with the idea of forcing players to jump through eighteen hoops just to get a shot at playing against the "names". II'm not sure if that's exactly what you're getting at, but if they're so damn good, they can play against anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and the PGA should adopt this stance too. I'd pay $10,000 in a heartbeat to play a round in the US Open with Tiger Woods. I realize my handicap is about 18, but if Tiger's so good, he can play against anyone, including me, right? (tongue firmly in cheek)

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, and the PGA should adopt this stance too. I'd pay $10,000 in a heartbeat to play a round in the US Open with Tiger Woods. I realize my handicap is about 18, but if Tiger's so good, he can play against anyone, including me, right? (tongue firmly in cheek)

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe some of the pros would like everyone to believe that this is an accurate analogy - the truth is, it's not even remotely close. Poker is an art, but it's not rocket science, and it's obviously not a physical sport. The difference between Tiger Woods and a good Joe Amateur is like the Grand Canyon; the difference between Daniel Negreanu and a good Joe Amateur is like a ditch in your yard by comparison. And someone is filling up the ditch with dirt as we speak.

[ohgeetee]

raising the buyin would work too. I would wager that its going to stick at 10k for 1 more year, to see what the growth surge is next year. in 02, they had like 500ish players, 03 had 800, then 04 had 2500. if it doubles or triples expect it to hit 25k or more the year after next, but they might be pushing saturation at 2500 with the 10k buyin.

They will try to guesstimate how many of their expected number they would lose by raising the buyin to 25k, nad if that number doesnt lower their bottom line, the buyin will get raised. I don't think making it a 25k buyin will affect internet satellites at all in regards to how many spots are offered that way. The buyin for those internet supers may get raised a bit, but not enough to stop them from still hitting max capacity.

[West]

As far as I can tell, you didn't specifically say anything about making amateurs jump through hoops - [ QUOTE ]
I hope by next year, at the WSOP, we either don't have so many amateurs, or the best adjust their game to fit the new game.

[/ QUOTE ] that's all. Ohgeetee hinted at restricting how you get in to the WSOP, without being super specific. I think the best pros will definitely adjust their game to deal with the amateurs they face, but they are also going to be facing a growing number of amateurs who will become top players themselves, IMHO. All I'm saying is, keep it a fully open tournament - no restrictions like, so and so can buy directly in because he has a bracelet, but John Doe can't.

[holman3rd]

I actually agree with you that amateurs should not have to jump through hoops to play with poker "pros". I was just throwing in a bit of sarcasm for humor...then again, I'm not really that funny.

Seriously, though, this is poker, for crying out loud, so I can never see it being treated like real sports. I really don't understand why pros whine about amateurs anyway. If the amateurs really do suck, the why wouldn't pros welcome their so-called dead-money into tournaments. Really, would a pro rather play a ring game against 9 other world champs, or 9 other world chumps?

Whah whah whah...so the game has changed b/c of the Internet and an influx of amateur players. Adjust and move on. Better yet, rewrite "the book" and make a killing that way.

[West]

Oh, sorry, heh.

Exactly. I think that on balance, the pros do have to love playing against a large amount of amateurs in the big events. They just have to adjust to their opposition at any given time - isn't that what poker is all about? If Negreanu plays Q2s and hits a flop big, he's a genius, but if Joe Nobody does it, he's a mine in a minefield that Hellmuth stepped on. Hey, this just in, there's luck in the game - guys like the guy that won that PLO event can in fact win - people need to just accept that that is the case. It's one of the reasons the game is so popular.

[jwvdcw]

Before we try to solve these 'problems', can someone tell me why having a large field and many amatuers is such a bad thing?