WSOP needs Re-vamping [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

dogmeat

11-02-2005, 07:18 PM

Guthrie

11-02-2005, 07:41 PM

The vast majority of those slobs this year didn't even have the 10 grand. They won satellites either in poker rooms or online. So what?

How often did you watch it on TV back when it was limited to the best players in the world? How often do you watch it on TV now that anybody can enter and win?

TexArcher

11-02-2005, 10:51 PM

I think that's why they instituted the points system covering all of the tournaments. They should start awarding the World Championship to the player who wins the points and have a separate Hold'em World Champ for winning the Main Event. That way other poker games like Omaha and Stud are represented in the World Champion of Poker title...

And I think they should raise the buy-in to $15,000 or 20,000 and stop letting people win their seats to the Main Event via online sattelite. Sattelites could be allowed to award seats to all of the other events, just not the main event. The field is getting ridiculous, there was a girl who won her seat on some Japanese game show and didn't even know how to play hold'em, that's just retarded.

joker122

11-02-2005, 11:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's the most democratic golf tournament in the country. Anyone who qualifies can play and anyone who plays can win.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, and if you've qualified you are a very, very good player. it's not like they just let in every weekend hack that signs up - it's extremely difficult to make.

the reason the open has appeal is because it's democractic, yes. but it's not the complete sh*t show that the wsop is - the worst player in the field will still be scary good.

bottomset

11-02-2005, 11:39 PM

um the online games are so good because some random dude won the WSOP

11-02-2005, 11:40 PM

Why?

AustinDoug

11-03-2005, 12:04 AM

Why do you feel the winner of a particular tournament would automatically qualify as the top player in the world?

Why do you care who wins the WSOP?

Why shouldn't "name pros" have to beat no name players to win the tournament?

TexArcher

11-03-2005, 12:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's the most democratic golf tournament in the country. Anyone who qualifies can play and anyone who plays can win.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, and if you've qualified you are a very, very good player. it's not like they just let in every weekend hack that signs up - it's extremely difficult to make.

the reason the open has appeal is because it's democractic, yes. but it's not the complete sh*t show that the wsop is - the worst player in the field will still be scary good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agreed, qualifying for the US Open is a million times harder than someone catching two or three nights of good cards in sattelites. Now, golf doesn't have the variance that poker does, fair enough, but the WSOP is in serious jeopardy of making a mockery of itself for the sake of corporate sponsorship...

I can hear it now, Lon's voice-over, "Welcome to the 2015 World Series of Poker, we've got a record 46,215 entrants this year"...

SoftcoreRevolt

11-03-2005, 02:05 AM

Because people in their minds have turned the WSOP into something it isn't, a prestigious event that isn't just a money making enterprise.

Glenn

11-03-2005, 02:33 AM

Poker is not about TV entertainment value. It's about money. I'm sorry your show is sad because your degenerate idols are losing to people you don't know. Fortunately you can watch great shows like The Apprentice, Martha Stewart instead.

Dave Mac

11-03-2005, 02:42 AM

the next 10 people who suggest limiting the wsop field or raising the buy in should be ban.
dave

Bosox

11-03-2005, 11:21 AM

So ban me. After 5,000 entrants, making it a 15k buyin might be in order. There's a difference between having an inclusive and accessible tournament and getting rediculous. Also, back when it started, 10,000 dollars really meant something. Think about it, raising the buyin is just like adjusting for inflation.

Rasputin

11-03-2005, 11:43 AM

What makes people think the WSOP is supposed to pit the best against the best?

That's in your own mind.

What is happening is that the WSOP is becoming the monster field tournament. If you want the best against the best, play in the WPT champsionship with it's $25,000 buyin. Only 452 entered and clearly Tuan Le is the best of the best.

But the bottom line is this. It's not your tournament. If you don't like it, don't play.

EStreet20

11-03-2005, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sattelites could be allowed to award seats to all of the other events, just not the main event. The field is getting ridiculous, there was a girl who won her seat on some Japanese game show and didn't even know how to play hold'em, that's just retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

The game show thing is really stupid. Satellites are not. the whole idea behind a satellite is that all players entering put their money toward the higher tourney's buy-in. Thus, these people who win enough satellites to get to the main event are essentially winning ten thousand dollars to buy in with. There is no flaw in that whatsoever. To break it down, player A enter a SnG with a 110 +10 buyin. If he wins he gets a ticket to the 1,000 +100 buyin WSOP satellite SnG. The 110 from the first SnG times 10 players equals the 1100 for the next satellite. Thus he buys in for 1100, or 1000+100 and if he wins he gets 10 grand to enter the WSOP. In the end all players involved in that second satellite are chipping in 10,000 somewhere. It's no different than you and nine of your friends each putting up a grand for one of you to enter. I'm sure you'd see no problem there.
Obviously that was a very simple example but in the end the players are paying for the entry, except in freeroll cases where the site does. Either way the entry money is put up and goes into the prize pool at the WSOP.

Another thing we have to remember is that since the first year of the WSOP, where Johnny Moss was named champion by vote, no one has ever said the winner of the WSOP or of any tourney for that matter was clearly the best player in the world. It's simply a tourney designed for people to make money. Has it become harder for the big names to make money in the Main Event?? Sure it has. But they've always said they can make more in the side games anyway, so let them.

Good luck,
Matt

Zetack

11-03-2005, 11:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's the most democratic golf tournament in the country. Anyone who qualifies can play and anyone who plays can win.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, and if you've qualified you are a very, very good player. it's not like they just let in every weekend hack that signs up - it's extremely difficult to make.

the reason the open has appeal is because it's democractic, yes. but it's not the complete sh*t show that the wsop is - the worst player in the field will still be scary good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agreed, qualifying for the US Open is a million times harder than someone catching two or three nights of good cards in sattelites. Now, golf doesn't have the variance that poker does, fair enough, but the WSOP is in serious jeopardy of making a mockery of itself for the sake of corporate sponsorship...

I can hear it now, Lon's voice-over, "Welcome to the 2015 World Series of Poker, we've got a record 46,215 entrants this year"...

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be so cool.

The reason it won't however, is that every "slob" who enters invisions himself winning. Most people can take a week or two off of work, most people couldn't take thirty days off from work.

My prediction, entries will level off eventually somewhere in the 12,000-15,000 range. I predict 8300 entrants next year.

--Zetack

11-03-2005, 12:54 PM

I don't get why you have a problem with the format.

It's not like tournaments are going to be run for long enough to identify small differences in skill over the variance in cards. When people do computer poker testing or competition, they're playing tens and hunderds of thousands of hands, if not more. If you have players putting in 100 hands an hour, that's still 100 s hours of play per match.

Another problem with NLHE as a competition format is that players can make tactical descisions that drastically reduce the effect of skill in the game -- for example, always raising all-in.

Regardless, if the better players are really better than the no-names, then either their superiority in skill will bring them victory consistently, or the format does not provide for sufficient influence from skill, and it's more of a lottery. In either case, allowing no-names in the game is reasonable.

DcifrThs

11-03-2005, 01:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What makes people think the WSOP is supposed to pit the best against the best?

That's in your own mind.

What is happening is that the WSOP is becoming the monster field tournament. If you want the best against the best, play in the WPT champsionship with it's $25,000 buyin. Only 452 entered and clearly Tuan Le is the best of the best.

But the bottom line is this. It's not your tournament. If you don't like it, don't play.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are correct rasputin.

you need an avatar.

here are two suggestions.

1) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/Dcifrths/rasputin4.jpg

2) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/Dcifrths/rasputin.jpg

Barron

11-03-2005, 02:12 PM

I think the appeal of the WSOP is that anyone can enter. I know that I can never play in a Super Bowl or PGA championship but the "dream" of being able to play in the premier poker event in the world is real. All I need is $10,000. Someday I plan on playing in it. I own my own business but right now all my profits go to paying off the bank that holds my business loan. In a few years when that note is retired I'll be able to afford to play in the WSOP. Think of how many people like me there are out there. Poker wouldn't be nearly so popular if that dream weren't there for the average guy. There are plenty of big money tournaments out there that you don't need to limit the big one. I started playing on-line and reading books for the sole purpose of making my game better so I can do better when I do get to play in a major tournament. For years I had consistently won money in home games and the thought of taking poker to a higher level had never crossed my mind. Keep the dream alive for the average Joe out there and it will attract a lot more people to the tables.

11-04-2005, 03:01 PM

I think what they need to do is do a big qualifier tourney prior to the WSOP main event. So that in the main event you have good players who made it past the big qualifier. Like for all world series and championship events like superbowl etc.., teams go through alot of qualifying matches. I think it should be this way. Have the people qualify for the WSOP. Run qualifier tourney all over the world that have buyins of like $2k. Then get all the qualifiers together into binions. This will eliminate the Joe Schmo's who just want to be on TV, and get some good players in the game, making it exciting to watch.

Also i think they should televise big cash games. like the 1000/2000, they dont have to show their hands in the pocket cam, since most pros will not like this idea anyway. I think it would be good tv.

11-04-2005, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What makes people think the WSOP is supposed to pit the best against the best?

That's in your own mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

The name of the tournament is "The World Series of Poker." Clearly, the name was taken from baseball. You don't see any bar league softball teams playing in the baseball World Series.

11-04-2005, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The vast majority of those slobs this year didn't even have the 10 grand. They won satellites either in poker rooms or online. So what?

How often did you watch it on TV back when it was limited to the best players in the world? How often do you watch it on TV now that anybody can enter and win?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason why poker has become more watchable on TV is because the player's down are shown. In the old days, this wasn't case. You had to wait for the hand to be over. Now, you can play along at home. It makes a huge difference.

11-04-2005, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why you have a problem with the format.

Regardless, if the better players are really better than the no-names, then either their superiority in skill will bring them victory consistently, or the format does not provide for sufficient influence from skill, and it's more of a lottery. In either case, allowing no-names in the game is reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You inadvertently brought up an interesting point. I've noticed that many of the no-names take crazy chances, hoping to get very lucky, when heads up against a pro. IMO The amatuers do this not so much to win the tourney, but to tell their friends back home about knocking a pro out of the competition.

Howard Lederer commented that every time he made a bet, he had to defend his stack.

That's one more reason to limit the competition.

11-04-2005, 04:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the appeal of the WSOP is that anyone can enter. I know that I can never play in a Super Bowl or PGA championship but the "dream" of being able to play in the premier poker event in the world is real. All I need is $10,000. Someday I plan on playing in it. I own my own business but right now all my profits go to paying off the bank that holds my business loan. In a few years when that note is retired I'll be able to afford to play in the WSOP. Think of how many people like me there are out there. Poker wouldn't be nearly so popular if that dream weren't there for the average guy. There are plenty of big money tournaments out there that you don't need to limit the big one. I started playing on-line and reading books for the sole purpose of making my game better so I can do better when I do get to play in a major tournament. For years I had consistently won money in home games and the thought of taking poker to a higher level had never crossed my mind. Keep the dream alive for the average Joe out there and it will attract a lot more people to the tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's stopping you from becoming one of the best players in the world?

The dream is still there regardless. That's the beauty of poker. You don't have to be big, strong, fast, young, male, white, rich etc.

UATrewqaz

11-04-2005, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to be big, strong, fast, young, male, white, rich etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it helps /images/graemlins/smile.gif

SoftcoreRevolt

11-04-2005, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You inadvertently brought up an interesting point. I've noticed that many of the no-names take crazy chances, hoping to get very lucky, when heads up against a pro. IMO The amatuers do this not so much to win the tourney, but to tell their friends back home about knocking a pro out of the competition.

Howard Lederer commented that every time he made a bet, he had to defend his stack.

That's one more reason to limit the competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that one more reason to limit the competition? That is one more reason to keep it as it is. Do you think the pros DON'T like it that idiots are making terrible plays against them? They know in the long run they'll make oodles of money because of it.

OH NO SOMEONE BLUFFED HOWARD LEDERER WE BETTER BAN ALL THE DONKEYS.

11-04-2005, 10:12 PM

People are foolishly forgetting that all of these "pros" were nobodies once too. They all started with a chip and a dream and eventually made it big. They made it by winning one of the big buy in tournaments and winning a lot of money, along with their fair share of fame. Almost every famous player was a nobody until they won a big tournament or made a couple televised final tables. There are plenty of other tournaments around the world, so griping about the WSOP ME is pretty pointless.

11-04-2005, 10:49 PM

there are far too many factors involved that run deeper than just the tournament. think about how much revenue the WSOP ME draws to vegas. around 5600 people flew out there to play. not only do they have to pay the buyin, they must reserve a hotel, and most are going to probably go to a casino once the bust out. this event draws so many fish to vegas it in turn becomes so profitable for vegas to keep it this way.

SoftcoreRevolt

11-05-2005, 01:05 AM

The WSOP isn't that big of a deal in terms of big Vegas events.

Snoogins47

11-05-2005, 01:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
there are far too many factors involved that run deeper than just the tournament. think about how much revenue the WSOP ME draws to vegas. around 5600 people flew out there to play. not only do they have to pay the buyin, they must reserve a hotel, and most are going to probably go to a casino once the bust out. this event draws so many fish to vegas it in turn becomes so profitable for vegas to keep it this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention all the hookers and blow.

11-06-2005, 01:10 PM

I'm watching the New York City Marathon. Having just seen the WSOP, I'm surprised that there isn't a guy who originally showed up for a bowling tournament still in contention late in the race.

Zetack

11-08-2005, 10:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The WSOP needs to take a page from the PGA Masters and have the tournament confined to the top 150-200 players in the world.

To have a tournament that is supposed crown the top poker player in the world, and then allow every slob with 10 grand to participate is simply absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you limit it to 150 or 200 people it still won't crown the top player in the world. If you had a series of 20 tournaments with the same 150 or 200 players with points assigned based on their finishes in all 20 events, it still wouldn't identify the top player in the world.

Since your solution wouldn't even accomplish what you want it to accomplish (crown the top player) its a pretty silly reason to destroy the greatest poker event in the world.

--Zetack