Raising the WSOP buy-in?

[slickpoppa]

I think its time to increase the buy-in amount at the WSOP to $15,000 or $20,000. The buy-in has been $10,000 for over 30 years. Out of curiosity, I looked at an online inflation calculator that said $10,000 when the WSOP first started is the equivalent of about $45,000 today.
Although the number of frivolous entries in the WSOP is good for business now, I think that if the entry pool balloons too much, the event will suffer. What makes poker so appealing is the delicate balance between luck and skill. As the number of players in the WSOP keeps increasing, the event becomes more and more like lottery. Maybe that is what organizers and casinos want to happen; an "anybody can win" mentality is supposedly great for any gambling business. However, if tournament poker evolves into a lottery, it will eventually lose an essential part of its appeal: that it can be won with skill. I think poker will be much better off by attracting crappy players who think they are skillful enough to win than attracting pure gamblers. Pure gamblers will play anyway, because they think that they can beat any game, even craps.
Furthemore, the WSOP will become boring to watch and lose its prestige if the buy-in is not enough to limit the field to somewhat serious players. Imagine how boring it would be to watch a $10 buy-in tournament in which people don't even give a [censored] how they play or whether they lose. Part of the drama of high stakes poker is the pain of losing a lot of money. $10,000 is a lot of money to me, but it obviously means very little to some people. Increasing the buy-in to 15K or 20K wouldn't change the economics for some people, but it would be a step in the right direction. It would also help to limit the number of internet qualifiers. I think it is good that you can win a seat to the WSOP for 40 bucks through an internet satelite, but I think there needs to be some way to limit the number of internet qualifiers.
Increasing the stakes seems to me to be the fairest way to prevent dilution of the WSOP talent pool without completely blocking out new players.

Any thoughts?

[boo]

I think this sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure it'll actually have an effect. I don't know the numbers, but doesn't a really big portion of the "dead money" get into the main event through cheap (mostly internet) super-satellites? I think these people wouldn't blink at the fee increase from, say, $100 to $150 to enter one of these, potentially for an even bigger payout in the end. I could be way off base, but I don't think it's as easy a fix as just raising the entry fee.

[Ryner]

I figure a limit to the number of entries (say, 2700?) would be better.

I'm right there with you on everything you said. I do think that in the next few years the entry fee will be raised and the amount of online qualifiers will be reduced. There are way too many poor players in the WSOP at the present time.

To me, the WPT Championship is becoming more prestigious. It's a much tougher field and the quality of play is higher. I hope the Travel Channel will increase the coverage of that event in the next few years.

[The4thFilm]

Why does the WSOP have to have good players? The allure of poker is that anyone can play and win.

[TRlANGLEman]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the WSOP have to have good players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's the World Series of Poker, not a $20 buy in home game.

[ QUOTE ]
The allure of poker is that anyone can play and win.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But for me that's the minor part of poker's allure. The fact that skill is a major part of poker is the main reason I was attracted to this game in the first place, because to tell you the truth I dont have a whole lot of gamble in me, and I think I speak for most of the people on these boards when I say this. Why else would all of these people be posting exhaustive analytical treatments on poker theory, strategy, and tactics?

[TRlANGLEman]

BTW hello everyone! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[The4thFilm]

(What are the hell are you talking about??)

[benfranklin]

I think that the entry fee should be raised to $25,000, to give it a little more meaning (and pain). I don't think that there should be any limit on internet players. The winner of an internet seat is much more likely to be a better and more serious poker player than some rich gambler who thinks nothing of tossing out $10 grand just so he can tell WSOP stories to his golf buddies back home.

If I was going to limit the entries, I'd limit it the other way, and say that no one can play unless you win a seat in an internet tournament, or in a B&M satellite, or if you ever finished in the money in any WSOP event, or in the money in any tournament that paid over a certain amount for top prize. This is supposed to be the big leagues of poker. Why not make sure that everyone has qualified in the minors first?

[daryn]

yeah i'm sure that's what all the pros want.. a system so that they can make sure that everyone registered for the wsop belongs there. haha what a joke.

[The4thFilm]

Am I the only one who this that the worst thing that could ever happen to tournament poker is putting requirements who can enter?

[ QUOTE ]
yeah i'm sure that's what all the pros want.. a system so that they can make sure that everyone registered for the wsop belongs there. haha what a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's definitely what they want. With all the amateurs in the event now, the skill factor has taken a back seat to luck. What did Doyle say in his interview after he was knocked out, "70 percent of the players are pretty bad". I agree.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who this that the worst thing that could ever happen to tournament poker is putting requirements who can enter?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not the only one. I agree with you. And, I'm very confident that Harrah's isn't going to do anything with the intention of limiting the number of entrants to the WSOP main event.

This artcle (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jun-03-Thu-2004/business/24019237.html) from 6/3/04 says that Harrah's expects entries for the 2005 WSOP to triple again to about 7,500. With the WSOP being moved to the Rio, there will be plenty of convention space to run an event as big as this.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yeah i'm sure that's what all the pros want.. a system so that they can make sure that everyone registered for the wsop belongs there. haha what a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's definitely what they want. With all the amateurs in the event now, the skill factor has taken a back seat to luck. What did Doyle say in his interview after he was knocked out, "70 percent of the players are pretty bad". I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same type of bizarre thinking that makes players say "I can't beat low-limit games because the bad players keep calling my raises with trash like 84o. I need to move up in limits where my opponents will play better. Then, I'll be able to win." It's so misguided. The pros love what's happening in poker.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, the WPT Championship is becoming more prestigious. It's a much tougher field and the quality of play is higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a complete joke.

[Ryner]

I dont get why some people think the number of internet qualifers should be limited. Why are they any less deserving to play than some guy who just walked up to a table and plunked down 10k?

[gergery]

I think you're wayyyy off on your thinking on what makes good poker, and you clearly need to take several economics and marketing classes.

--Greg

[TM1212]

The4thFilm Do you really think any1 can win?
Could a complete idiot with no knowledge of toutament poker really win the WSOP?
I hate to break it to you but the answer is simply no! The WSOP is set up, with 2 hour long rounds to nearly all but elminate luck from the competition. Now from time to time a player will hit a run of great cards and get a nice stack, but when s/he makes one mistake there gone. When it comes to the WSOP Luck only occurs when oppertunity meets preparation, and its the same way in all sporting competitions.

As for makeing players qualify, DUMBEST IDEA EVER! Professional will tell you they want more and more dead money in a tourtament, cause when there oppertunity to win finally comes around the worse the competition the easier itll be. From time to time a dead money player will win, which professionals also don't mind, this leads to the allusion that The4thFilm is under, that anyone can win, and that brings more poor players in.

Now as for raiseing the buyin, you think they would have already during the 30 years of the wsop. inflation along with the abundance of millionaires, maybe a higher price tag would be nice, but not to limit the field simply to increase the payout.

As for 7200 that the Harrah claims will come nest year... I think there gonna fall about 4000 short. Thats just Harrah pushing there own agenda,and the number of entries can not continue on the path it is currently on.

[slickpoppa]

I'm sorry, it's not the same thing. If you go all-in in a cash game with AA against 84o and lose, you can get up and reload, knowing that you'll win in the long run. If you lose to a shitty hand in the WSOP, you've gotta wait a year for another chance. The long-run in the WSOP is a very long time.
In a tournament in which people will go all-in with anything, pros will inevitably become victims of increasing variance. Even vs. AA, 84o will win 14.5% of the time. If a pro goes all-in with AA four times vs. 84o, there is only a 50% chance that he will win all four times.

[slickpoppa]

do you have any arguments to support your accusations?

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the same type of bizarre thinking that makes players say "I can't beat low-limit games because the bad players keep calling my raises with trash like 84o. I need to move up in limits where my opponents will play better. Then, I'll be able to win." It's so misguided. The pros love what's happening in poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

exactly.
Why on earth would pro's not want as many bad players as possible in the tournament?
Restrictions on who can get in is a horrible idea. I don't believe that raising the buy in puts restrictions on who can play. Thus, i don't care if they raise the buy in, but none of that "have to qualify" crap. That would never happen anyway.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
If a pro goes all-in with AA four times vs. 84o, there is only a 50% chance that he will win all four times.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pro won't have to win every time. He'll have such a big stack from winning the first couple times that when he eventually does lose, it wont' hurt him much.

[lolita16]

I played a super sat a few nights ago with a dealer from the horseshoe. This exact topic came up and he said that the entry fee cannot be raised due to some type of contract from it's original start. I'm not entirely sure of the validity of his assertion but it makes some sense to me.

The big question to me is when will the number of internet qualifiers reach the point that all seats are taken via the internet, ie the top players cannot pay to gain a seat. I suspect this may happen as soon as next year. I heard a couple of pros talking shortly after the series started and one mentioned that he had sold his (won in a satellite) seat to a rich businessman for 15K. He stated that with the huge field, 5K in pure profit was simply too much to pass up. I can see this becoming a huge problem for next year as we are likely to see won seats auctioned on ebay to the highest bidder. Seeing what is to come for this event will be interesting.

[Ryner]

I really dont think it's very likey we'll see so many internet qualifiers that top pros cant get a seat. I dont think seats sold on ebay is much of a possibility either.

[MikeSmith]

Instead of raising the buy in how about changing the game to H.O.R.S.E. A true world champion can play all the poker games not just no limit hold em. This will pretty much scare off a lot of the less experienced players.

[scarr]

The online satellites are bringing a tougher field for the pros to beat. Now you have MANY people playing in the WSOP which have played much more than 25-50 NL Hold'em tourneys, some only within the last year. Many of the people playing in the WSOP in the past, had almost zero experience playing in a NL freeze-out Hold'em tournament. This gave an advantage to previous contenders and pros.

The pros which busted out early in this years WSOP, just didn't adjust their game to the competition. How many pros do you see playing in these daily online NL tourneys? I'm not talking about the big ones like the WCOOP, but the $20-$200 buyins. If I was playing in the WSOP, I wouldn't be preparing by playing in big ring games, or high profile B&M tourney's, rather I'd be playing with the majority of your competition is, online in the low buyin tourneys.

I think they should raise the buy-in, only because of inflation. They should reduce the number of participants only because of the length of the tourney. I don't care how they do it, as I suspect you will still hear the "pros" complaining.

We have a high quality field already, much higher quality than in the past. There is still skill involved in winning this game, it is just a different skill than in the past.

-scarr

[lolita16]

It makes me nuts when people post only to critique someone else's post only to say, "I think you are wrong", no elaboration.

"I really dont think it's very likey we'll see so many internet qualifiers that top pros cant get a seat. I dont think seats sold on ebay is much of a possibility either."

Really. Exactly how many internet qualifiers do you think it will take to fill a complete tournament. The number increased exponentially this year from somewhere around 400-500 last year to over 1500 this year (I've never seen an exact posting of the number of internet qualifiers. This is a rough guess from totaling the number that the major sites sent.)

One of the largest appeals of the WSOP to the pros is that the structure is set up so that skill plays a factor, ie. large starting stack relative to blinds, blinds increase slowly throughout tourney, etc. This requires time. It requires more time the larger the field grows. Would Harrah's likely host a tournament with 5000+ entrants? Sure, why would they not. The media appeal alone makes it worth it for them. Would the majority of pros play a tournament that is comprised of 8, 9, maybe even 10 twelve to fourteen hour days of poker which must be played with the mindset that one mistake can mean elimination. In Howard Lederer's diary from the 03' event, he comments on conserving mental energy in the first few days, as it is impossible to stay at your absolute peak mental level for extended periods of time.

With the growth of the internet and the huge number of people gambling online, I think these are questions that the industry need to give some serious thought to. As a person who played a super sat last year and saw the absolute chaos surrounding this event (some 1000 people standing in line), I think this is something the industry needs to give some serious thought to.

The dealer from the shoe that I mentioned has already won a seat in the 05 event. This is September and the next main event occurs in June of 05.

Please feel free to disagree with anything that you like, but do us all a favor and add some substance to your argument, beyond, I think you are wrong.

[Ryner]

The reason I think it's impossible for so many seats to be taken by online qualifiers that the top pros will be shut out of the event, is because it's not possible. There, there's my substance.

[lolita16]

I agree with Scarr's posting. If you look at the field and results this year, the pros gained a huge amount of equity due to the vast amount of dead money in the event. Even with a field of 2576, most of the big names in poker survived to the less than 1000 mark (day 3).

The biggest reason that I would support an increase in the buy in (though I've been told contractual obligation prevents it), is to make the entry money substantial to the average online qualifying winner. Many friends asked me why I would have chosen to play the event rather than take the 10K had I gotten in this year. My answer was simply, 10K will not change the overall quality of my life substantially; 5 million would.

If the entry fee was raised to even 25K, more people would seriously consider the effect of this amount vs the outside chance of winning the event.

[lolita16]

I refuse to go to war against an unarmed opponent.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
The big question to me is when will the number of internet qualifiers reach the point that all seats are taken via the internet, ie the top players cannot pay to gain a seat. I suspect this may happen as soon as next year.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not going to happen because Harrah's is not only prepared for big jumps in entries to the tournament, they are also encouraging and promoting for it. If you read the article I linked above, you will see that Harrah's already is prepared for a 7,500 player field in 2005.

The WSOP is going to be held at the Rio starting in 2005. The main reason this site was chosen over Harrah's casino on the Strip is that the Rio has substantial convention space. I'm guessing they have the space to handle an event with tens of thousand of players. Since they'll have some advance notice of how many satellite qualifiers will be in the tournament, I'm sure a big gaming corporation like Harrah's will also have the staff to do a much better job than Binion's did this year.

I'm sure that many people will be dissapointed with the WSOP being owned by a new company and being moved out of Binion's Horshoe. They'll miss the "old school" feel of the tournament. But, Harrah's is much better positioned to make the WSOP a much bigger event than it is today.

[Ryner]

I'm sorry you are so unhappy with me you must toss out cliches, but I just dont think I need to explain while I think it's impossible for a tournament director to say:
"I'm sorry Mr. Hellmuth, Mrs. Duke, Mr. Cloutier, Mr. Brunson, but I'm afraid our very last seats were just taken by online qualifiers Bluntman420 and AKAKAKAKAKAsuited. Sadly, it appears you wont be able to play this year, as we are completely sold out."

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard a couple of pros talking shortly after the series started and one mentioned that he had sold his (won in a satellite) seat to a rich businessman for 15K.

[/ QUOTE ]



I didn't think they cut-off the number of entries this year.
Why wouldn't the rich guy just buy his own entry for $10k?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of raising the buy in how about changing the game to H.O.R.S.E. A true world champion can play all the poker games not just no limit hold em. This will pretty much scare off a lot of the less experienced players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody who has a vested interest in the poker industry wants to scare off the less experienced players. The pros don't want it. Harrah's doesn't want it. Poker rooms don't want.

I've heard the arguement that HORSE or something similar should be used to determine the world champion. I don't like the idea.

While it would be nice if the world championship event had a high probability of crowning the best poker player as the world champion, the reality is that any tournament just isn't a good system for doing that. Tournaments have too strong of a short-term luck factor. Even with a big stack sizes relative to blinds, slowly escalating blinds, and a high skill level game like HORSE, the short-term luck of the game will play a big role.

If you were going to create a game designed to find the best player, it would something like a 4-12 month cash game where eveybody is putting in hundreds of hours at the tables.

Remember, the World Champion, in any game/sport, doesn't necessarily equate to being the best player/team. Is the winner of the Super Bowl always the best team in the NFL? Does it have to be? If you gave me the option of being world champion at something or the best at that same thing, I think I would always choose world champion.

So, what value does having a world championship in poker have? From my perspective, it's the best way of promoting the game. Every game/sport needs a centerpiece event which focuses the attention of fans. Whether it's the WSOP, the Super Bowl, WrestleMania, or the National Spelling Bee, a game/sport gets its most attention at this kind of centerpiece event. That benefits the game as a whole.

[scarr]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm sorry Mr. Hellmuth, Mrs. Duke, Mr. Cloutier, Mr. Brunson, but I'm afraid our very last seats were just taken by online qualifiers Bluntman420 and AKAKAKAKAKAsuited. Sadly, it appears you wont be able to play this year, as we are completely sold out."

[/ QUOTE ]

They could always reserve seats for past champions.

[The4thFilm]

It's called sarcasm.

[lolita16]

They actually did cut out entries to sit down and start the tournament at the start of the event. The official sell out number was 2400. The remaining 176 people were "alternates" at the start of the event. The alternates received their seats as the first of the 2576 busted out. As it turns out the remaining 176 all got in on the first day as people busted out, but at the start they didn't know if this would be true. I played a one table satellite in the early am hours prior to the main event. My only problem with the shoe's handling of the event was that they weren't openly saying at that time that any winners would be alternates. Other players were already speculating that the event was actually "sold out". (that there were not enough seats to accomodate the number already registered)

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
The remaining 176 people were "alternates" at the start of the event. The alternates received their seats as the first of the 2576 busted out. As it turns out the remaining 176 all got in on the first day as people busted out, but at the start they didn't know if this would be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm... yea I think that they were pretty sure 176 players would be out in day 1 with a field of 2K+ players. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[lolita16]

Now this is a sound argument. Thank you Dynasty. It still brings up the second part of my speculation though. How long an event are they prepared to have? With an event of this magnitude, they are almost forced to cut the level time and escalate the blinds much quicker thereby creating much more of a crap shoot effect.

The alternative is scheduling an event that is likely to take two to three weeks to complete. I personally, would prefer this to a structure in which luck is such a huge factor that the best players cannot possibly survive the short term luck factor.

The stress level of surviving such a long agonizing tournament would be quite difficult. It might also make it possible for the best player to actually win. It might also create a proposition bet for who would have a nervous breakdown first. My money would have to be on Helmuth.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
The alternative is scheduling an event that is likely to take two to three weeks to complete.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think a two week event would be a big deal. After all, the major tennis tournaments last two weeks. The NBA Championship and Stanley Cup Finals would also take two weeks if they go to seven games.

I think it might actually be a good idea to create off-days in a 3000+ player tournament. Everybody can play three days and then get a day off. They play two more days and then there's another day off. Then, the final 1-3 days are played.

Harrah's bought the WSOP so they can make it the crown jewel of the company. It won't make the most money for them, but it will generate the greatest amount of publicity. Therefore, I'm sure Harrah's will be very happy with a huge field and a very long tournament.

[HUSKER'66]

[ QUOTE ]
The4thFilm Do you really think any1 can win?
Could a complete idiot with no knowledge of toutament poker really win the WSOP?
I hate to break it to you but the answer is simply no! The WSOP is set up, with 2 hour long rounds to nearly all but elminate luck from the competition. Now from time to time a player will hit a run of great cards and get a nice stack, but when s/he makes one mistake there gone. When it comes to the WSOP Luck only occurs when oppertunity meets preparation, and its the same way in all sporting competitions.

As for makeing players qualify, DUMBEST IDEA EVER! Professional will tell you they want more and more dead money in a tourtament, cause when there oppertunity to win finally comes around the worse the competition the easier itll be. From time to time a dead money player will win, which professionals also don't mind, this leads to the allusion that The4thFilm is under, that anyone can win, and that brings more poor players in.

Now as for raiseing the buyin, you think they would have already during the 30 years of the wsop. inflation along with the abundance of millionaires, maybe a higher price tag would be nice, but not to limit the field simply to increase the payout.

As for 7200 that the Harrah claims will come nest year... I think there gonna fall about 4000 short. Thats just Harrah pushing there own agenda,and the number of entries can not continue on the path it is currently on.

Edited by TM1212 (09/06/04 06:53 PM)


[/ QUOTE ]

Just for my own curiosity, is english your second language?

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
do you have any arguments to support your accusations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your arguments are jumbled and don't make a lot of sense. You also don't provide any support for them other than "i feel this way"

Let's take them one at a time, as best i can piece them apart.

***I looked at an online inflation calculator that said $10,000 when the WSOP first started is the equivalent of about $45,000 today.****

Completely irrelevant. You set pricing to accomplish objectives, not on vague history. The consumer situation has changed dramatically in the past years.

** As the number of players in the WSOP keeps increasing, the event becomes more and more like lottery.

That is irrelevant. Poker tournaments are about providing entertainment. It will still do this with more people. Pro sports teams add new cities all the time -- it doens't make the football league more of a lottery, it means the better teams will still win.

***However, if tournament poker evolves into a lottery, it will eventually lose an essential part of its appeal: that it can be won with skill.***

You are taking an argument to an illogical extreme. Poker will always have skill involved with it. It will never ever be a pure lottery.

***I think poker will be much better off by attracting crappy players who think they are skillful enough to win than attracting pure gamblers.

This again has nothing to do with the price of an entry fee.

**Furthemore, the WSOP will become boring to watch and lose its prestige if the buy-in is not enough to limit the field to somewhat serious players.

The WSOP will be MORE interesting to watch when more people see what they perceive to be themselves playing in this. You have this exactly backwards.

**Something goofy about how people are happy to blow 10k.**

Almost every single person who enters will be trying hard to win. Some because the like competition, some because the 10k entry is alot, almost everyone because they want $5MM. You seem to be focusing on a few very rich people that somehow because they are rich will throw their money away. The vast majority of people got rich by NOT throwing their money away.

***It would also help to limit the number of internet qualifiers. ***

This is a bad thing. It is in no one's interest to limit qualifiers.

**the fairest way to prevent dilution of the WSOP talent pool without completely blocking out new players. **

Most of your arguments seem to be "i only want good poker players in the WSOP", based mainly on "cause i like it that way". But that's the whole point of the competition -- let people play and the best will emerge. I guarantee you the final 100 players will all be pretty good players.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Dynasty,

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a two week event would be a big deal. After all, the major tennis tournaments last two weeks. The NBA Championship and Stanley Cup Finals would also take two weeks if they go to seven games.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had to hazard a guess as to how they'll sort out the huge fields, I'd guess they'll use qualifying events such as the format I mentioned in my predictions post. E.g.: with 7500 entrants, they might run 15 tourneys with 500 players, or 30 tourneys with 250 players, each one over a two-day period in a side area while the other WSOP bracelet tourneys are going on. The top 20-25 players from each of the qualifying tourneys would earn seats in the main event, along with the top 15-25 from the all-around (Player of the Year) leaderboard.

Yes, that would put some players in the position of having to choose between a WSOP bracelet tourney (Pot-Limit Omaha, Razz, etc.) that they think they can win, or the main event qualifier to which they drew. But that isn't as stark a choice as it might seem, and in fact the better all-around players -- Daniel Negreanu, Howard Lederer, John Juanda, Chris Ferguson, etc. -- might forego main event qualifiers altogether, choosing instead to try to earn a seat through the all-around leaderboard.

So, the main event could have a fixed field of 400-500 or thereabouts, where each of the entrants either placed high in a qualifier, or placed high on the all-around Player of the Year leaderboard. Yes, a heretofore unknown could win a qualifier seat through the internet, place high in that qualifier to win a seat in the main event, and make it to the final table to win it all. But the general quality of play in the main event would probably be better, as most of the weaker players will have fallen by the wayside in their qualifying events.

The prize pool for the main event would be taken from the qualifying tourneys, so there would be a lot of dead money in the main event pool. If 25 out of 500 players in a qualifier advance, then 95% of the money in the main event prize pool is dead money -- contributed by players who did not survive their qualifying tourneys.

This would keep the game profitable and attractive for the top pros, while still preserving the possibility that some heretofore unknown might surprise the poker world and win it all.

Cris

[scarr]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, the World Champion, in any game/sport, doesn't necessarily equate to being the best player/team. Is the winner of the Super Bowl always the best team in the NFL? Does it have to be? If you gave me the option of being world champion at something or the best at that same thing, I think I would always choose world champion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Kentucky Derby comes to mind here. Better at promoting the sport than finding a new world champion. Good point!

I don't know what HORSE is, wrt Poker, but structuring a Poker tournament closer to how they do Bridge tournaments would do better at finding the best player.

In Bridge, they have multiple tables playing the exact same hands as the other tables.

They should think of how to promote it more, rather than trying to find the best player. Higher buyin will only create more prize money, and more promotion.

The ESPN broadcast has done it wonders, and having an "unknown" take it last year was the best scenario possible for Poker.

I think it is funny how the average Joe thinks they are really betting real money into these pots, and not tournament chips. It makes for good entertainment value and promotes the sport that much more.

I prefer them showing more of the bluffs as opposed to the all-in showdowns, or the calculated odds plays.

However, this could be as McManus said "disrespecting the game". You really need a true championship to keep the game solid, and give it long lasting staying power, when it falls out of fashion.

[jwvdcw]

Your argument is flawed. Increasing number of entries does not take the skill out of it because more spots will be paid out. Sure you'll have to get lucky to win it all, but good players can still win money in it using their skill by getting in the money a lot of times.

[jwvdcw]

I really don't think raising the buy in will cut down all that much on the number of entires. All of those online qualifiers will simply pay $100 instead of $50 to enter their online satellites.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yeah i'm sure that's what all the pros want.. a system so that they can make sure that everyone registered for the wsop belongs there. haha what a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more. Are you honestly saying that it would be more profitable to play only against top players than to have tons of bad players in it as well? Keep in mind that you don't have to win a tourney to profit.
I think that's definitely what they want. With all the amateurs in the event now, the skill factor has taken a back seat to luck. What did Doyle say in his interview after he was knocked out, "70 percent of the players are pretty bad". I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

[toots]

I think changing the structure of the WSOP main event would be kind of silly. "Anyone can play" will always be its greatest appeal.

But, raising the buy-in does make sense, just to reflect inflation since the original $10K buy-in was set.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
If I had to hazard a guess as to how they'll sort out the huge fields, I'd guess they'll use qualifying events such as the format I mentioned in my predictions post. E.g.: with 7500 entrants, they might run 15 tourneys with 500 players, or 30 tourneys with 250 players, each one over a two-day period in a side area while the other WSOP bracelet tourneys are going on. The top 20-25 players from each of the qualifying tourneys would earn seats in the main event, along with the top 15-25 from the all-around (Player of the Year) leaderboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's 0% chance of this happening. The two biggest problems that immediately come to mind are:

1. The top 15-25 from the all-around (Player of the Year) leaderboard don't appear to be paying an entry fee. That's grossly unfair.

2. The qualifying events are spread over a long period of time (the month long of tournaments prior to the main event). Most of the main event players are only in town for the main event itself and maybe a few more days. It would be a logistical nightmare to try and schedule something like that.

A 5,000+ player field would be run just like this years tournament although with the greater space at the Rio it probably won't be necessary to break the field in half for the "first day". The only problem I could see with not breaking up the field is whether Harrah's will have enough quality dealers.

The structure of the tournament isn't going to be radically altered. It's not neccessary and it does't provide any measurable benefits to either Harrah's or the players. Harrah's is going to keep the WSOP main event as it is and simply promote it stronger than Binion's ever could.

[lolita16]

(quote) I don't know what HORSE is, wrt Poker, but structuring a Poker tournament closer to how they do Bridge tournaments would do better at finding the best player.(/quote)

HORSE is a combination game favored by many of the top cash game players. It stands for holdem, omaha, razz, stud, and eight or better, usually in a round rotation or time rotation.

(quote) In Bridge, they have multiple tables playing the exact same hands as the other tables.(/quote)

Are you suggesting that poker hands be scripted? If so this seems ridiculous to me. Some version of "all tables seat one will now be dealt AK under the gun against pocket 10's to seat 5. Lets see how they play them. Do we aspire to make the player who wins more coin flips the world champion? Do we give the newbie who always pushes with the 10's more credit than the pro who reraises, then folds to the all in reasoning, I'm either a slight favorite (against two overcards), or a huge dog (against a bigger pair) and I can get my money in in a better spot.

(quote) I think it is funny how the average Joe thinks they are really betting real money into these pots, and not tournament chips. It makes for good entertainment value and promotes the sport that much more.(/quote)

While it is not "real" ie. cashable at the cage money, the world series bets do represent "real money". It is one of only a few tournaments (perhaps more now with the WPT) in which the player buys in for 10K and receives 10K in tournament chips.

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its time to increase the buy-in amount at the WSOP to $15,000 or $20,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Hopefully not another poker elitist. Let's see.

[ QUOTE ]
The buy-in has been $10,000 for over 30 years. Out of curiosity, I looked at an online inflation calculator that said $10,000 when the WSOP first started is the equivalent of about $45,000 today.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that's true, that's not, per se, an argument that the WSOP buy-in *should* be raised, unless your premise is that, for some metaphysical reason, the WSOP buy-in should always be equal in real terms to its original value. I doubt that's your premise.

[ QUOTE ]
Although the number of frivolous entries in the WSOP is good for business now, I think that if the entry pool balloons too much, the event will suffer.

[/ QUOTE ]

And now it begins.

[ QUOTE ]
What makes poker so appealing is the delicate balance between luck and skill. As the number of players in the WSOP keeps increasing, the event becomes more and more like lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is utterly false. The element of "luck" in the sense that is relevant to poker--that is, the random distribution of the cards in the deck--does not increase simply because the number of entrants in a tournament does. All that increases is the amount of *skill* necessary to win--which is why Dan Harrington has made a final table two years in a row.
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe that is what organizers and casinos want to happen; an "anybody can win" mentality is supposedly great for any gambling business.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it's also great for semi-pro, professional, and knowledgeable amateur poker players. Poker as a whole becomes a more EV proposition for good players when more bad players decide to start playing the game.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if tournament poker evolves into a lottery, it will eventually lose an essential part of its appeal: that it can be won with skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reiterate: The fact that more people enter a tournament does not make it more like a "lottery." It just makes it harder to win.


[ QUOTE ]
Furthemore, the WSOP will become boring to watch and lose its prestige if the buy-in is not enough to limit the field to somewhat serious players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than ESPN, who cares what you find boring?

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine how boring it would be to watch a $10 buy-in tournament in which people don't even give a [censored] how they play or whether they lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you seriously think that ANYONE at the WSOP doesn't care whether they win or lose?

[ QUOTE ]
Increasing the buy-in to 15K or 20K wouldn't change the economics for some people, but it would be a step in the right direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that by "the right direction," you mean: A retrogression; a step back to the "good ol' boy" days of poker; and a general decline in the game's popularity.

[ QUOTE ]
It would also help to limit the number of internet qualifiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean "internet qualifiers" like Greg Raymer? People that whine about internet qualifiers are just angry that they haven't figured out a way to beat them.


[ QUOTE ]
Increasing the stakes seems to me to be the fairest way to prevent dilution of the WSOP talent pool without completely blocking out new players.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHY WOULD GOOD PLAYERS WANT ANYTHING OTHER THAN "dilution of the WSOP talent pool"??? Christ!

[Big_TX]

I do agree on a higher buy in for the main event.

Personally, I would also like to see a separate event that required a minimum point score in the WSOP series--a "best of the best" top 100 or so would be worth viewing.

[Easy E]

<font color="green"> While it is not "real" ie. cashable at the cage money, the world series bets do represent "real money". It is one of only a few tournaments (perhaps more now with the WPT) in which the player buys in for 10K and receives 10K in tournament chips </font>

Of course, you meant that the chips each represent an equivalent invested dollar amount, not the real money that they get in prizes.

[KC50]

...of the 70% that are truly bad that Doyle is referring to about 95% of them don't believe they are that bad. And that's what we want them to think.

Here's an example. I am a floor in a local cardroom. I feel like a bartender sometimes due to players frequently coming to me to complain about someones bad play and the beats they take.

We spread a daily NL game in which there are about 100 or so players who support it throughout the week. The game is incredibly soft in general.

Now the same player who complains about how bad their opponents play on a particlular hand called a raise and an allin re-raise preflop for $250 with KJ of diamonds. Of course he told me later after he lost to AA why the call was correct and how his opponent played the hand wrong.

Gotta luv it!

KC

[EnderW27]

"Are you suggesting that poker hands be scripted? If so this seems ridiculous to me."


No, the way duplicate bridge works is you have a board with four slots in it. One for E,W,N &amp; S. The players sitting at that location pull out the appropriate cards, play the hands, tuck them back into their appropriate slot, and pass the board one table down.
The cards themselves are NOT decided by the tournament director. They are either shuffled and dealt at random or are computer generated, again by random. The key here is that when the boards are passed, each team plays the exact same hand as previous teams around the room.


This wouldn't work in poker for a few reasons:

1) It would be a logistical nightmare trying to put ten hands into a board after each time and passing them down the line.
2) As players move from table to table throughout the tournament, it becomes inevitable that many players would play the exact same hand twice...or more. In bridge, the movement is specifically designed to make sure this will not happen. In poker, it cannot be.

3) The most important reason of all: duplicate bridge is based on the premise that bridge players are inherently ethical and will not go to other tables to look at the cards they will be getting. This actually does work. In poker, for $5 million, I would NEVER trust my fellow poker players to be that ethical. It just won't happen.

[Easy E]

<font color="blue"> "The biggest reason that I would support an increase in the buy in (though I've been told contractual obligation prevents it), is to make the entry money substantial to the average online qualifying winner. Many friends asked me why I would have chosen to play the event rather than take the 10K had I gotten in this year. My answer was simply, 10K will not change the overall quality of my life substantially; 5 million would. </font>

<font color="red"> If the entry fee was raised to even 25K, more people would seriously consider the effect of this amount vs the outside chance of winning the event. </font>

Are you saying that the extra $15K is enough to turn down a chance at a $12.5 million first prize? Or $7.5M for second?

[Jaquen H'gar]

I'm all for raising the entry fee. Double the entry fee, the numbers may lessen but not to half, prizes will still go up. Quality will hopefully improve.

The tournament was definitely diluted this year and people knew it, else what is the motivation for the soon-to-be televised WSOP tournament of champions? Uhh, what is the purpose of a tournament of champions? I thought that was the purpose of the WSOP. The WSOP is no longer achieving its purpose so change it.

[Kevmath]

One could say the purpose of a "Tournament of Champions" is to create another 2 hours of programming that will give it good ratings, that's relatively cheap to produce, and can air several times with similar good ratings.

[bigfishead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The alternative is scheduling an event that is likely to take two to three weeks to complete.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think a two week event would be a big deal. After all, the major tennis tournaments last two weeks. The NBA Championship and Stanley Cup Finals would also take two weeks if they go to seven games.

I think it might actually be a good idea to create off-days in a 3000+ player tournament. Everybody can play three days and then get a day off. They play two more days and then there's another day off. Then, the final 1-3 days are played.

Harrah's bought the WSOP so they can make it the crown jewel of the company. It won't make the most money for them, but it will generate the greatest amount of publicity. Therefore, I'm sure Harrah's will be very happy with a huge field and a very long tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]


MAJOR changes in the tournament personnel are about to be happen. When any announcements will be made I cannot say. However I think I will copy some of this thread and print it out and give it to the power in charge. Some very good thoughts in this thread.

[italianstang]

That would be tight, and keep the blind levels the same but start everyone with a million chips!

[bigfishead]

[ QUOTE ]
They actually did cut out entries to sit down and start the tournament at the start of the event. The official sell out number was 2400. The remaining 176 people were "alternates" at the start of the event. The alternates received their seats as the first of the 2576 busted out. <font color="blue"> </font> I played a one table satellite in the early am hours prior to the main event. My only problem with the shoe's handling of the event was that they weren't openly saying at that time that any winners would be alternates. Other players were already speculating that the event was actually "sold out". (that there were not enough seats to accomodate the number already registered)

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get this information? Seems there are POSSIBLY some legal things in the works. This is ONLY heresay but I had heard some people didnt actually play a single hand tho their names were listed as having gotten in and hhhhmmmm...where did the money go?

Fortunately the future presents itself with a man of the highest integrity to oversee this event. More will be announced by Harrahs at a later date I'm sure. What many do not understand or know is that the behind the scenes happenings have been quite bazaar of many years. I do not mean in the actuall play. Nothing to that effect.

Dynasty did touch on Harrah's ability to improve the staffing. YES it is happening. Maybe even some of the good dealers from years past will return to work this event.

In case you dont know. Many quit working this event because they were tired of being ripped off. Leaving the entrants with not much better than mediocres or break-ins. Give this event 2 more years and it will be the nuts in how it's run and delivered to the entrants.

[Stew]

I'm going to end this completely fng stupid thread right now. The WSOP should remain at 10K for now and ever. That's what the fng buy-in is, it is the 10K WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP OF POKER. When you win this tourney, you are the world champion, end of story. You start jacking with the buy-in and all this other crap, then you dilute the tourney. The tourney was not diluted this year, that's the stupidest statement I have heard in some time. Just b/c only one big time Pro made the final table does not dilute the tournament. I hate to tell you, but there are a lot of people who play poker that can be and maybe even are better than some of the "Name Professionals". The problem is they don't have the bank roll, time or even desire to play the game as a professional. I think our current World Champion is a prime example.

You don't mess with tradition. Did you see Mike Matusow cry when he got busted? How many times do you think Phil Hellmuth dreams of winning his 10th Bracelet? The World Series is the World Series.

Don't change a thing, it is the tournament of all tournaments. Let Bellagio have a 25K tourney, Let Wynn's new place hold a 50K buy-in tourney, who cares. The World Series has the tradition and nothing will ever change that, UNLESS they start fng with it, that's what will destroy the World Series.

[slickpoppa]

If you wanted to keep the tournament the same, you would have to adjust the buy-in for inflation. Look up monetary neutrality in an economics book. By now, the buy-in should be about 45K.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
If you wanted to keep the tournament the same, you would have to adjust the buy-in for inflation. Look up monetary neutrality in an economics book. By now, the buy-in should be about 45K.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you wouldn't, do you make the Indy 500 a 700 mile race b/c engines can go that far now?

[slickpoppa]

The distance of a race track is real variable whereas money is only nominal variable. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[fimbulwinter]

stew-
what happens to your immortal tourney 50 years from now when 10K is the lowest buyin cash NL game? just allow 100000 entrants?
if they really want to consider poker a sport, take it seriously and legitimize it, with the WSOP being the true coup de grace, there should be 1000 places put up for general auction with no tournament charge. let the casino make its money televising it; how could a name pro turn down a no-overhead tournament with huge fish who could pony up the 100-200K that the seats would probably sell for?

fim

[lolita16]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Many friends asked me why I would have chosen to play the event rather than take the 10K had I gotten in this year. My answer was simply, 10K will not change the overall quality of my life substantially; 5 million would. </font>

<font color="red"> If the entry fee was raised to even 25K, more people would seriously consider the effect of this amount vs the outside chance of winning the event. </font>

Are you saying that the extra $15K is enough to turn down a chance at a $12.5 million first prize? Or $7.5M for second?

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, no. I would still choose to play the event. But then, I figure I have a better shot than many of at least wading through all of the dead money and at least cashing, with a chance at a lottery type payoff.

I tend to think that amongst the average John Q public citizen, who likely realizes that his chances of winning this event is a really long odds crapshoot. Given the possibility of of cashing out 25K for their say $100 satellite entry, I think a large portion of these players would opt for the immediate payday rather than the longshot.

Even though I know egos run huge when we start discussing poker, I think most newbie's know their potential to win it is a very long shot at best.