WPT announces schedule for next 3 years and creates a pros' only tour

[Kevmath]

Info at
WPT Press Release (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040916/165215_1.html)

[Sponger15SB]

1)
WPT Online Tournament 9/19/05 - 9/26/05 9/25/06 - 10/02/06

What the heck is that?

2) Damn WPT, I was hoping next year they'd move back the mirage poker showdown 1 week so I could play it (my birthday is at the end of july) but isntead they actually moved it UP a week! bah.

[riverflush]

More here (http://bigslicknews.com/) ...with comparisons to PGA.

[Kevmath]

It seems the two online tournaments listed are for UB and Pokerstars.

Kevin...

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike the WPT, participation in the PPT will be limited to professional players who meet eligibility requirements based on success in previous tournament play. The current WORLD POKER TOUR is open to anyone who wishes to buy-in or who has won a seat in a satellite tournament, regardless of past performance or skill level.


[/ QUOTE ]
UGH! This is why I am in favor of the WPPA. The sponsor money goes back to the common man, the hometown hero, not the top players!

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ghazban]

Why would the pros want to play the pro-only events? Unless somebody else is putting up the prize money, there's no incentive whatsoever to play. Great tourney pros love to see huge fields full of dead money even though they know it lessens their chances of winning because, when they do win, they will win a lot more. A large field with many fish has a much higher EV than a smaller field of exclusively professionals.

[riverflush]

Why would the pros want to play? Sponsors will eventually put up the money - just like the PBA, PGA, etc. We're just at the beginning of that. Uncharted territory for poker.

[thylacine]

What is the WPPA?

[WinBig]

I think the devleopment of a pro only tour is a direct result of an individual named Phil Hellmuth. He whines and cries so much about bad plays that they figured if they limit the field to "qualified pros" that he won't have anything to complain about when he gets knocked out of a tourney! Oh wait, this is Phil we're talking about - he'll always have something to cry about.

[TimTimSalabim]

www.wppa.info (http://www.wppa.info)

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]

What is the WPPA?

[/ QUOTE ]
WPPA (http://www.wppa.info/cp/home.aspx)
From what I have heard, the pros will be bought into events, yes, but they also have to sign an exclusive agreement, playing only in these events. This could be devestating for a big-name pro. First off, he cannot play in events with people who don't play at the same level as him. What if he never cashes in one of these events? A sponsored buy-in doesn't equal a win!

The WPPA is having the sponsors pay the juice, and also host freerolls. The freerolls will be free buy-in's for satellites to the WPPA events. This way, the average guy gets a chance, for absolutely ZERO buy-in, to be in a big event. He can play with pros, be on TV, live out his dream of a free trip to Vegas, or whatever. The "Hometown Hero" from Nebraska doesn't have to risk one penny in order to get this chance versus a company sponsoring a big name player in a tourney. That brings new blood, new players into big tournaments, not just giving free buy-in's to big names!

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[CrisBrown]

Hi Ghazban,

If Steve Lipscomb really does want to make it like the PGA, he'll have to do what the PGA does: have the tour organize the prize pools through sponsor and TV money, freeroll the players, and allow the players to have commercial sponsors.

It's that last factor that I suspect will kill the idea. So far, Lipscomb has forbidden commercial sponsors for WPT final table participants. That's why you see the players with black tape over any corporate logos on caps, etc. If Lipscomb is planning to continue this rule with the PPT, I don't think they players will find it profitable. Even if it's a freeroll, it's taking time that they could spend at more profitable (i.e.: fishier) tables.

There's also the issue of which corporations would want to sponsor PPT players. By and large, I'd expect these to be casinos and online poker sites, who want viewers to see the logo again and again and perhaps come there to play. While online poker sites did appear in Season 1 of the WPT, the U.S. Justice Department threatened the Travel Channel, and forced Lipscomb to obscure any online site logos in Season 2. Apparently ESPN wasn't worried, as they freely showed many of these logos during the WSOP coverage. Perhaps the Justice Department has backed off, in which case the online sites could be sponsors for PPT players. But I don't see there being a whole lot of other sponsorship opportunities out there.

Also, I'm not sure whether there will be an enduring fan base sufficient to support a PPT. It may be that poker is an emerging sport which will retain TV popularity, but it may be a passing fad. Ultimately, if poker is to succeed as a sport -- rather than a made-for-TV spectacle of edited highlights, smoke banks, and swirling spotlights -- the WPT will need to find a way to cover it live, and to preserve the excitement of the sport itself.

I'm not sure the pace of poker is suited to such coverage, unless it can be done in a PGA-like fashion: covering several tables and cutting to the most interesting action. At the final table, they would need to borrow another page from the PGA, which often uses earlier highlights to fill the time while the last few groups are walking to their next shots. In a poker telecast, this would mean "how they got here" highlights intercut during the dry spells in the final table action.

Finally, to really give it a sports-like impression, they will need statistics: how many pots played, how often for raises, how has Player A handled this particular hand in a previous round, etc. When Mike Sexton can say "Phil Ivey has done really well with his small suited connectors in this tourney, with a 64% win rate for an average of 15 big blinds per hand," in a live broadcast, while Phil is deciding how to play 76s at a final table ... then people will see and support poker as a sport.

Cris

[Solitare]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the pros want to play? Sponsors will eventually put up the money - just like the PBA, PGA, etc. We're just at the beginning of that. Uncharted territory for poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the pros in the PGA also make more $$ from activities associated with the tour than they do from prize money. The obvious extra source of income is through coporate sponserships. Not only doing commercials and magazine ads for club makers and the like but the revenue from wearing trademarks on their hats, shirts, and bags.

The much less well known source of income for touring pros is the seminars and events they do for coporations and golf courses in the area of the event. A typical golf pro will schedule 1 or 2 of these appearances during the practice days on Mon, Tue, and Wed. They might hold a seminar for a local coporation or they might play in an golf event at a local golf course.

These sources of income came about only through the popularity of the PGA and USGA golf tours. I'm sure that the poker pros would welcome similar steady (not luck dependant) sources of income. A "pro's only" tour may lack dead money conributing to the prize money, but I'm sure that will be made up from many other sources.

[riverflush]

Is the WPPA an attempt at a poker "union"? Things are very vaguely worded at the WPPA site...but it appears to be an attempt to thwart the commercial growth of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
We are outraged at this entire process of exploiting the game and its players and dealers for profit but giving nothing back to the game or the players or the dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is outraged? These are great times for poker. The amount of money in the game is at an all-time high. Purses are larger, fields are full of fish, tv exposure allows players to capitalize on their popularity with sponsor deals, products, videos, etc. etc. etc. It's a great time, why the "exploitive" angle?

"Giving nothing back to the game or the players or the dealers." Huh? These pioneering entrepeneurs, such as Steve Lipscomb, have done the leg work to promote the game to MILLIONS of new players - this latest surge has done more to "give back" to the game and the players than any single event in the history of poker. We've got $3.5 million going to the SECOND PLACE finisher at the WSOP. Who do you think is responsible for that?

Poker is an individualistic pursuit...that's a fundamental element of the game, and it's never going to change.

Why all the angst?

[FeliciaLee]

I guess it is something you would have to be around every day in order to understand. While shows like LNP and the WPT have helped build bigger prize pools, and get people interested in poker, they have also created some unethical happenings in the poker world.

The "best of the best" players benefit greatly from the increased prize pools. The poker boom has even helped the "good" players work their way up from lower-middle limits to higher limits.

But what has happened to the "good" players who play tournaments? Well, the juice has gone from about 5% or lower, to upwards of 100%. One casino is even charging more juice than the money that goes to the prize pool! How fun is it to buy into a tournament where you pay a $220 buy-in, $100 of which goes to the prize pool, and $120 of which goes to the house?

It is sort of like price gouging. Something big happens, so a gas station raises prices from $1.00 per gallon to $5.00 per gallon. Who is really benefiting here?

On the flip side, dealers are being treated worse than ever, so the quality of dealers has gone down quite a bit, too.

After the WSOP this year, an announcement was made that in addition to all of the cutbacks that dealers and floorpeople have had already, in 2005, they would not be paid at all! They would work for free, and pray for tips. They were told if they didn't like it, find somewhere else to work.

I think that the industry should be ashamed that this kind of price gouging is being conducted.

Now, as far as the very top players being exploited? Well, yes, they are now getting some good deals, but that is very recently, and it has come with a high price tag. Like what? Exclusive rights...exclusive rights to interviews, magazine articles, TV appearances and someone telling you which tourneys you can play in. It's definitely not "individualistic" when a sponsor owns you.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Is the WPPA an attempt at a poker "union"? Things are very vaguely worded at the WPPA site...but it appears to be an attempt to thwart the commercial growth of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
We are outraged at this entire process of exploiting the game and its players and dealers for profit but giving nothing back to the game or the players or the dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is outraged? These are great times for poker. The amount of money in the game is at an all-time high. Purses are larger, fields are full of fish, tv exposure allows players to capitalize on their popularity with sponsor deals, products, videos, etc. etc. etc. It's a great time, why the "exploitive" angle?

"Giving nothing back to the game or the players or the dealers." Huh? These pioneering entrepeneurs, such as Steve Lipscomb, have done the leg work to promote the game to MILLIONS of new players - this latest surge has done more to "give back" to the game and the players than any single event in the history of poker. We've got $3.5 million going to the SECOND PLACE finisher at the WSOP. Who do you think is responsible for that?

Poker is an individualistic pursuit...that's a fundamental element of the game, and it's never going to change.

Why all the angst?

[/ QUOTE ]

[riverflush]

Thanks for the response Felicia...

I appreciate your concerns and your perspective, and I want to say right up front that I mean nothing personal in my views here.

The dealers not being paid well? Legitimate issue, but I don't want to mix that in with the players for the sake of this discussion...let's focus on the players here.

If the rake is too high, the juice is prohibitive...THE PLAYERS NEED TO GO PLAY SOMEWHERE ELSE, or JUST NOT PLAY. That's the solution. Don't feed the beast. It's really just that simple. We live in an age of casinos popping up in nearly every state in the union - and the resulting competition for players has been great for the poker community.

I am around it every day. I see exactly what you see. I can choose not to play, not to participate - that is my freedom, that is my choice. If Vons/Smiths/Kroger/Jewel/Albertsons is charging too much for ketchup...I can go to Wal-Mart, or Target, or Savon, etc. Poker is no different.

I am absolutely NOT against players getting together and screaming ENOUGH at the exhorbitant juice. Organize, refuse to play, and things will change. But if there are 1000's of players that ARE willing to play, you're not going to change anything. It's called a market. You can't fight it. It runs itself. Supply and demand is uncontrollable. Casinos cannot charge high juice if there is no demand for their product. The demand is going up, up, up with the popularity of poker. I would be upping the juice I charge, too. It's basic economics. When the players get pissed and stop playing, I'd lower my juice to get them back - but by then it might be too late...cause CASINO X down the street is probably already offering lower juice games. Competition.


Similarly, if a player does not buy into the television bargain - WPT profits from GIVING YOU THE EXPOSURE AND FORUM TO PLAY IN FRONT OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE - then he/she should simply STAY HOME, don't play. You have that choice.

Because there are potentially millions of players who want to play on the World Poker Tour, Lipscomb and WPTE are in a position to profit from their risk-taking (starting a TV show, a more-often-than-not money losing proposition). If there were no participants willing to be "exploited" - they would have no business.

If you want to be a "big name pro" - the formula is strikingly simple: get good enough, bring your $10,000 to Binions, Bellagio, Foxwoods, the Bicycle Club, Mirage, etc. etc, and win. That's it. Now, you're in the club. Not everybody can do it, but everybody is free to try.


Or you can just choose to stay home.

[riverflush]

Again Felicia....I get passionate about these types of issues (business), and I don't mean to get fired up AT you. It's not about me vs. you.

I'm posting with all due respect to you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[whiskeytown]

no, probably not /images/graemlins/grin.gif

But Mike was instrumental in the formation of the Tournament of Champions from several yrs. ago (where entry was limited to those who won seats in other tourneys or other big tourneys) - and I know he's wanted the idea back.

actually, we're seeing a lot of this...lots of Pro tourneys on TV - cheap and easy to make, no doubt - plus easier to keep suspensful, as players have to sign NDA's as to who won, something that can't be won in the real WPT. -

I agree that I can't imagine the benefits in playing in a "pro's only" game - it's the equivlant of playing 2+2 tourneys....just tougher opponents and a lower EV - give me the games with the 5 mil. fields...

ah well - whatever makes them money, I guess.

RB

[toots]

Yeah, competition is all well and good, if there is competition.

From where I live, the closest legal poker room is a two hour drive. Competition? The only competition that place had for poker had its poker room closed down (allegedly for good reason).

That means my choices are limited to:

1) Online, which just isn't the same as playing in a B&M
2) Paying whatever the heck those non-native americans want to charge at Foxwoods
3) Staying home

When they run the only game in town, they have a lot more lattitude when it comes to setting the rules.

[TimTimSalabim]

Poker is the only sport (that I know of) that is making huge money for everyone except the players. In fact, for the players (taken as a whole), the EV is negative. I'm pretty sure that in a golf tournament more prize money is given out than is taken from players in entry fees. I believe the idea of the WPPA is to try and remedy that, to lower the juice and also to try and attract sponsors. I don't believe the idea is any kind of unionizing or trying to destroy what's already there, just simply to offer some alternatives.

[FeliciaLee]

I understand your passion, believe me /images/graemlins/grin.gif And I appreciate that you attacked the subject, not me. That is something I try to do in all of my replies, as well.

<sigh> I wish there was competition. The problem is, there isn't. Even if there is more than one place to enter a tournament, they are all charging this atrocious juice these days. If one was charging 10% and went to 15%, within a week, they were all charging 15%. That has spiraled up and up, until some are charging more than the amount of the prize pool /images/graemlins/frown.gif

They can get away with it, so they do.

The only solution is something like finding a casino willing to work with a group of players. A casino willing to charge lower fees, and collect from the sponsors, while also getting the TV exposure for free. Fortunately, the new CRM at the Orleans has seen some potential in this. We will see how it works out at the end of the month. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Kevmath]

Just curious, where are people paying 100+% juice for tournaments?

Kevin...

[FeliciaLee]

One that I read about was in Arizona (not near me, but several hours away from where I live). A few more examples are "freerolls" or "virtual freerolls," which seem to happen quite a bit in California.

It is maybe just $5.00 to enter, or even free, but the "entry fee" is $5-15, and the cardroom claims to "add" money to the event. If you ask where that money is coming from, they tell you the BAD BEAT JACKPOT DROP!

So basically you are paying the house for a chance to win back your own money!

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is the only sport (that I know of) that is making huge money for everyone except the players. In fact, for the players (taken as a whole), the EV is negative. I'm pretty sure that in a golf tournament more prize money is given out than is taken from players in entry fees. I believe the idea of the WPPA is to try and remedy that, to lower the juice and also to try and attract sponsors. I don't believe the idea is any kind of unionizing or trying to destroy what's already there, just simply to offer some alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really complex subject. The first "X" factor involved is the fact that in the U.S., for better or worse, we make gambling "illegal" and then "license" certain business entities to allow various forms of said gambling - mainly so that governments can rake off a portion as a state "revenue" stream. I don't even want to get into this subject, because it is so dirty and arguably immoral, etc. etc. The state/casino partnerships in this country really should piss more people off than they do, but I digress...

Because of that - we can only sanction poker tournaments "legally" in licensed facilities...which automatically makes this worlds different from the PGA or any other real sport. That's X factor #1 = limited venues BY LAW.

#2 is that MONEY is THE way to keep score - like strokes in golf. A fundamental aspect of the game is players risking their OWN money - that's poker purity. It's gambling, it's not a sport. It's a luck/skill/psychology combo...but at its essence it's merely gambling. In order to gamble, a player must risk something. It's not a travesty, a scam, an outrage, or anything else - it's poker by definition.

Now that poker is crossing somewhat into the mainstream, players and promoters are getting rich - and that's rubbing a lot of pros and semi-pros the wrong way...but it's really two different arenas. If you take away the player entry of $10,000 at the World Series (or any other tournament), and instead rely on only sponsor money...it ceases to be poker as we know it and crosses into a form of entertainment. At that point, entertainment is the focus, not gambling. I'm ok with that - as I think it can be a viable form of entertainment. BUT...it's not set up that way just yet because, up until VERY RECENTLY, the market would not support it.

In my opinion, the decision to abandoned player-funded purses in lieu of sponsor-driven winnings is not a simple decision because it changes the game itself.

My main point is that comparisons to other sports where players get all the sponsor money and share in the revenues don't hold much water in poker, because poker is, well, poker...it's gambling. You don't use money to keep score in "sports".

[KanigawaCards7]

While the subject matter has gotten to serious for my young self to want to argue about it, I appreciate the discussion here. It seems good.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
If you take away the player entry of $10,000 at the World Series (or any other tournament), and instead rely on only sponsor money...it ceases to be poker as we know it and crosses into a form of entertainment. At that point, entertainment is the focus, not gambling. I'm ok with that - as I think it can be a viable form of entertainment. BUT...it's not set up that way just yet because, up until VERY RECENTLY, the market would not support it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is really advocating taking away the entry fee into these avents. All people would like to see is to have sponsers/TV people pick up the tab for the house take and maybe add a bit to rhe prize pool. Basically Entry to the WSOP would still be $10K, but all 10K of that would go directly into the prize pool and ESPN and a sponser or two would pick up the costs to the casino and maybe add some money to the prize pool in exchange for Advertising or the TV rights. The travel channel's costs to broadcast the WPT have to be tiny considering it's their higherst rated show by far, would it really kill them to add a little bit to the prize pool in exchange for the TV rights?

[CrisBrown]

Hi riverflush,

I don't think poker loses anything if the PPT arranges for sponsors and TV contracts to fuel the prize pools, and thus freeroll the players. When I'm watching a poker event, I'm not thinking: "Hrmmm, did this player invest the full $10K buy-in, or win through on a $2 satellite?" The amount that a player has invested to be there is irrelevant. A poker tournament is not scored in money, but in tournament chips.

Cris

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi riverflush,

I don't think poker loses anything if the PPT arranges for sponsors and TV contracts to fuel the prize pools, and thus freeroll the players. When I'm watching a poker event, I'm not thinking: "Hrmmm, did this player invest the full $10K buy-in, or win through on a $2 satellite?" The amount that a player has invested to be there is irrelevant. A poker tournament is not scored in money, but in tournament chips.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, I'm not against the sponsorship idea at all...I just think people need to back off the WPT is "exploiting" players angle. WPT and Steve Lipscomb (and other entrepeneurs) have done wonders for our little poker community. You can now take down Pacific Poker games all day long from the comfort of your couch - naked if you want to - and earn an income playing poker online. Without WPT, LNP, etc...these sites would be 50% less populated right now. The WSOP would still have 400 players - instead of 2500 and $5 million to the winner (and $120,000 to 27th Place). I wouldn't be able to go down to Harrah's East Chicago and make a profit from a room full of new poker players, in fact, there probably wouldn't even be a poker room.

Fundamentally, I think we're on the same page...we want a good game and a reasonable rake/juice...I'm not against that at all. Players can demand that, they can demand the best accomodations and price, etc.

But to bash enterprising businessmen for capitalizing on the wave strikes me as misplaced...since these same businessmen are responsible for that very wave.


side note: I do think playing for sponsor money does fundamentally change the game of poker - but maybe I'm old-school - and there is room for debate on this topic. I'm sure Amarillo Slim and Benny Binion would agree with me on this one, though.

[NutBuster]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the pros want to play the pro-only events? Unless somebody else is putting up the prize money, there's no incentive whatsoever to play. Great tourney pros love to see huge fields full of dead money even though they know it lessens their chances of winning because, when they do win, they will win a lot more. A large field with many fish has a much higher EV than a smaller field of exclusively professionals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "pro's only" tour is a horrible idea. A big part of the reason that the popularity of poker has suddenly taken of like a rocket is because the average TV viewer can actually relate to the game when they see it played on television. They can sit there imagining themselves at the table playing for all that money against the big name pros just like Moneymaker or any of the other ametuers they have seen on the tube. Whether they actually ever do compete or not is uniportant to them. It's the IDEA that they could if they chose too that CONNECTS them to the game.

Nothing sounds more boring to me than watching 8 or 9 seasoned pros playing hand after hand in the "correct" way. Just look at that Superstars of Poker show on Fox. It's the most boring TV poker broadcast on the air. The ENTIRE commentary since the show started has been focused on Gus Hansen and his unpredictable, non-conforming style of play. It's the only subject matter than any of the three analysts can come up with that won't put the audience to sleep.