Only 63 out of 830+ actually paid the $10,000??

[Dentist]

I was shocked when I read this... I think I read it on cardplayer or yahoo.

But according to the article, only 63 out of the 800+ paid the $10,000 - everyone else got in via satillite tournament, local tournament, internet, etc.

So, does this WSOP really draw the best of the best anymore? 2 years in a row now we've had amateur champions who paid next to nothing to get in the tournament.

So, I guess it begs the question as to whether it is truly the best players that do well, or is it just that those same guys play in so many tournaments that their names are bound to be at the top more often than not based on frequent entries...?

I know this year that more big names won and I certainly feel poker is a skill game... otherwise big guns like Chan, Hellmuth, and Juanda wouldn't pull down the trophies... but I just can't believe these relatively inexperienced players like Varykoni and Moneymaker can win against the pros....

[Greg (FossilMan)]

63 is almost certainly a wrong number. If I walk up to enter with cash, first I have to go to one desk and buy 20 lammers of $500 each (chips only good for buying into the tournaments). Then I walk a few feet down to the next desk and show them my player's card and give them the 20 lammers. They have no idea how I got those lammers, whether I just bought them at the first desk, or won them downstairs, bought them from another player, or whatever.

I'd be surprised if they really knew exactly how many won their way in through supers, 1-table sats, other casinos, or just paid cash.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Wildbill]

I would say its not that far off. When you have about 100 coming from the online rooms that made promos for this, probably 100 or more coming from various B&M cardrooms on similar type promos, a good flow of people winning them all year in the two stage (table, I don't know what they call them) satellites at Binions, then of course the endless satellites in town during the WSOP. I am sure most of the big names people think of get there through other ways than forking the money out. These guys can win the seats along the tournament trail leading to the WSOP or win them in satellites as well. They are such talented players it makes no sense for them to pay 10k for a seat because of the overlay the other ways to get in offer them. After all if you are a world class player, those supers at WSOP near the end where they sometimes award double digit seats have to be a big edge for a player that changes their play well and doesn't panic, but waits for the right spot. Getting to say number 10 in a tournament is a much different path, one where they can read where they are "gambling" with an opponent. They might do it in a regular tournament for the chance to get to the final table with a lot of chips, but here they would rather just get to the seat and not worry about having a huge stack.

I do think you are right about it being such a crapshoot and all, but lets face it the prestige of the title doesn't exactly match what it takes to get there. To be a true world champion should certainly require more than just running well and playing well for 5 days, especially with the abundance of events these days. Tradition says the WSOP winner will be the champ, but I think if the WPT ever went to a final event where it was based on results for all the events all year and you couldn't just buy your way into the final, then that person might start being recognized as a truer champion for the year.

[happyjaypee]

I'll add to the above post that some players win more then a single seat trough sattelite and sell them whit a discount. The buyer of such a seat is probably counted as having gotten in via sattelite.


-Happy /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[maplepig]

wouldn't the first desk know how many lammers of $500 chip they sold?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Actually, I think the proliferation of satellites and internet entries raises the overall skill level. Not long ago, all you got were the top tournament pros and a bunch of rich guys who didn't mind throwing their money away for the "experience" of sitting in the game. Now you actually get a higher percentage of fairly skilled players. The number of people worldwide who regularly play large multi-table NLHE tournies is much, much higher than 5 years ago, thanks to online poker and the growing popularity of weekly tournaments in casinos. What we're seeing with people like Varkonyi and Moneymaker is an example of the learning curve.

All in all, this bodes well for the future of tournament poker.

[cferejohn]

I think you misread something. 63 out of 830+ *were* paid. That is, the top 63 were in the money, which is often represented as something like "832 players, 63 paid".

[happyjaypee]

"832 players, 63 paid".

You got a point. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif


-Happy /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Dentist]

You know, I doubted myself after I read this, but then I did a solid search and found the article.

Only 63 Paid the buy-in (without winning some sort of satillite)

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/breaking_news/5939390.htm

[cferejohn]

Well, the article certainly does make that point clearly. However, its just an article by some AP reporter who certainly knows less about poker than any of us, so it is definitely possible, even likely, that she saw "839 players, 63 paid" and came to the wrong conclusion. The coincidence of 63 being the number of places that pay just seems to great.

"I believe in coincidences. Conincidences happen all the time. But...I do not *trust* coincidences."

[Easy E]

I think should involve several types of games (stud, holdem, omaha at least) AND betting structures (NL and PL for sure, maybe a limit event)

Not necessarily a HORSE tournament, but total wins in different tournament games over 2 weeks, or something...

[J.R.]

But the only thing that really counts in a poker game is who leaves with the money...