PPT/ Players Assoc/Comments

[oil doe]

Hey y'all,
I wrote an article (link below - which I admit pokes a little fun at Mike Sexton) about the migration from open to invitational tournaments. But in doing so, I started thinking more and more about a professional players association.

I was interested in people's thoughts about the possible formation of a Professional Poker Players Association and what roll, if any, you could see an organization like that playing in decisions that effect the continued growth of poker and players' interests.

Thanks,
Amy Calistri aka oil doe

http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/calistri06.htm

[1p0kerb0y]

Hey Amy...

I'm all for the Professional Poker Tour. The object is to get more big names on T.V., and I see nothing wrong with this for several reasons. First, it will create more "fans", thus increasing interests and bringing more players into the game. Second, all of the players have met the qualification standars, and these are exclusive to noone. To put it another way, ANYBODY can play in other tournaments and do well to qualify for the PPT.

I believe there already is a Player's Association, the WPPA. I may be wrong here, but I remember reading about it in Felicia Lee's BLOG. (http://felicialee.blogspot.com/2004_10_03_felicialee_archive.html) I don't think at this time an association is of much value. The PPT events are freerolls which total $2.5 million. Who is going to complain about that? Maybe in the future if casinos and/or tours ever try to take advantage of the players an association would be of value.

[toots]

Personally, I think it (the PPA) is a horrendous idea.

The big draw/romance/selling point of poker is its egalitarianism. Anyone can play so long as they can buy in. Theoretically, anyone can win. That makes it exciting.

When a relative nobody like Chris Moneymaker hauls down the big bucks at the 2003 WSOP, it's news, and it draws all sorts of new people to the game. That increases ratings for the networks, increases earnings for the poker pros, and increases interest in the game.

[sdplayerb]

It is like 6 tournaments, that is such a small%, of even the big tournaments, what is the big deal.
These are special events that follow a WPT event. These events aren't replacing any other events, they are extra events.
Also, it gives people something to shoot for. I'd consider it a major achievement to do well in some big events and get on the list..and will try to do so.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think it (the PPA) is a horrendous idea.

The big draw/romance/selling point of poker is its egalitarianism. Anyone can play so long as they can buy in. Theoretically, anyone can win. That makes it exciting.

When a relative nobody like Chris Moneymaker hauls down the big bucks at the 2003 WSOP, it's news, and it draws all sorts of new people to the game. That increases ratings for the networks, increases earnings for the poker pros, and increases interest in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Annie Duke beat out her older brother and eight other poker legends to win $2 million and the World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions.

The 39-year-old Duke outlasted the other players in an grueling game held earlier this month at the Rio hotel-casino.

ESPN telecast the event, the results of which had been kept secret, in a nearly three-hour broadcast Tuesday night.

Duke, the only woman to play in the No-Limit Texas Hold'Em event, knocked out the garrulous Phil Hellmuth to take the title after being on the verge of elimination most of the event.

The players included four past World Series of Poker champions: Greg Raymer, Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan and Hellmuth. Brother Howard Lederer, T.J. Cloutier, Phil Ivey, Daniel Negreanu and Chip Reese also competed.

Duke, a Las Vegas mother of four, holds a double major from Columbia University and did graduate studies in cognitive psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think it (the PPA) is a horrendous idea.

The big draw/romance/selling point of poker is its egalitarianism. Anyone can play so long as they can buy in. Theoretically, anyone can win. That makes it exciting.

When a relative nobody like Chris Moneymaker hauls down the big bucks at the 2003 WSOP, it's news, and it draws all sorts of new people to the game. That increases ratings for the networks, increases earnings for the poker pros, and increases interest in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with toots 100%!

[jakethebake]

Sponger, And your point is.....?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
It is like 6 tournaments, that is such a small%, of even the big tournaments, what is the big deal.
These are special events that follow a WPT event. These events aren't replacing any other events, they are extra events.
Also, it gives people something to shoot for. I'd consider it a major achievement to do well in some big events and get on the list..and will try to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Winning major tournaments isn't enough to shoot for? It's a slippery slope. Next thing we know, tournament directors will decide the crowds have become to unwieldy, the pros will whine about the crowds and then they start turning the majors into invitationals or pro only tournaments. Or maybe I'm just thinking of reasons not to like the idea...I dunno.

[Regulator]

That's ridiculously paranoid. First and foremost, casinos are concerned about making money. If you go back 5 years, a lot of casinos didn't even have poker rooms, especially riverboats and such outside Nevada. After televised poker became a hit, they saw that it was actually starting to turn a profit so they reintroduced their poker rooms and started running tournaments. Now, for casinos that host majors to forbid audiences or amateurs would be nothing less than idiotic. Anyone who walks into a casino is a potential gambler. Better yet, they're a potential losing gambler so there's no way a casino is ever going to turn them away.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Sponger, And your point is.....?

[/ QUOTE ]

it means that people don't really give a [censored] and they just want to watch some poker, otherwise the TOC and the PSI shows wouldn't be going on.

the PPT is a good idea and there will be a TV market for it, it isn't a horrendous idea, we will all watch and enjoy it.

[jakethebake]

You might be right. Maybe there's just something about the idea that rubs me the wrong way and I'm looking for reasons to justify it.

[Regulator]

You paint an awfully bleak picture of sponsored events taking the place of open majors and then devote just a single sentence to the actual truth of the matter. I realize it's an opinion piece, but even opinions should be tempered by a rational view of events. The one thing that is common to most any sporting endeavor is that the base participants are usually very resistant to any major change. This new tour doesn't take anything away from the way things currently run, it only adds to the poker landscape.

As it stands, poker is still an illegal form of gambling in a lot of states without certain stipulations. There is no one alive today who will see a time where casinos and card clubs are as prevalent as golf courses, and as acceptable. Without that kind of pristine air about it, it would be hard for poker to ever get to the point where there is so much sponsor money, that all events could afford to be fully sponsored.

Additionally, like I said above, limiting open majors to pros would reduce the profits a casino would make. Who is more likely to stay and gamble after busting out, a pro who plays a dozen big tournaments a year or an amateur who may think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity and brought his whole family out to see Vegas?

[oil doe]

I do think open tournaments are good for poker. But yes, I also agree that the PPT really doesn't alter the current situation much. And I think I acknowledge that in the article.

You made a pretty interesting point about the amount of sponsorship funding. Believe it or not, there are more recreational poker players than golfers in the US - and that was true even before the WPT. But I think that you are correct in believing that sponsors will be less likely to participate in poker because of the legal and perceived moral issues. I also believe that because poker is not an "equipment sport", you lose some pretty big bucks right there. Think of the $$ Nike has poured into basketball and golf club manufacturers pour into golf. Although I'm still waiting for Ray-ban and Preparation H to weigh in:)

I like a lot of the changes that have occurred in poker. Just five years ago poker rooms were closing to make room for more slots. This boon has brought a lot of positive changes. But the change has happened so quickly. I think I would feel a lot more comfortable if, like in other professional sports, there was an active and functional players association to help guide the way.

Good points y'all...thanks,
Amy Calistri aka oil doe

[1p0kerb0y]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would feel a lot more comfortable if, like in other professional sports, there was an active and functional players association to help guide the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm listening. What purpose would this association serve at this time?

[jaybee_70]

I love the idea of a pro tour. It is still egalitarian in the sense that tour cards can be earned from regular WPT finishes. Remember Tin Cup? This is very similar, any schmuck can win their way to the pro tour through winning a series of sattelites and making a final table at a WPT event. The best part is that after attaining that "tour card" you are playing free rolls. Totally sponsored prize pools. What a great opportunity for the "young guns" of the game. You can focus a limited bankroll on particular events, earn a tour card and have a better (if better is knocking heads with the poker elite) chance of earning a living as a tournament pro. Move to live (taped) coverage instead of all in coverage and I believe we have a recipe for greatness.

Joe

[Trainwreck]

Hi Amy and crew!

WPPA was created a few months back and is running tournaments at The Orleans.

Check it out at http://www.wppa.info/cp/home.aspx

>TW<

[jakethebake]

Tin Cup was a movie. Not real life. You really believe that just anyone with a bag of clubs can win a spot on the PGA tour?
[ QUOTE ]
I love the idea of a pro tour. It is still egalitarian in the sense that tour cards can be earned from regular WPT finishes. Remember Tin Cup? This is very similar, any schmuck can win their way to the pro tour through winning a series of sattelites and making a final table at a WPT event. The best part is that after attaining that "tour card" you are playing free rolls. Totally sponsored prize pools. What a great opportunity for the "young guns" of the game. You can focus a limited bankroll on particular events, earn a tour card and have a better (if better is knocking heads with the poker elite) chance of earning a living as a tournament pro. Move to live (taped) coverage instead of all in coverage and I believe we have a recipe for greatness.

Joe

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kevmath]

He was trying to qualify for the US Open, there are thousands of people (PGA pros, club pros, wannabe pros, and random schlubs) going for a small number of spots.

Kevin...

[jaybee_70]

Anybody can qualify for the U.S. Open golf tournament by winning qualifying tournaments. That is the point I was making.