Should we allow repeat WPT SuperSat winners?

[curmudgeon]

Especially in online tournaments like the ones below:
UltimateBet Aruba & Million
PartyPoker Million III
PokerStars Caribbean Cruise

There is a growing number of repeat winners who get paid cash for the extra entries they win.

Is it good for the sport? The poker community?
The specific tournaments?

[curmudgeon]

Allowing repeat winners in these events is bad for everyone except the cowardly bottom-feeding parasites that want to repeat as winners for the cash. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Repeat winners means:
A smaller prize pool
Less tournament players. (Don't kill the fish, you won't have anything to eat!)

Larger participation is best for the sport, best for the majority of players, best for the internet sites.

Change the rules.... there's plenty of other tournaments for these pro h0z to play in, but they are afraid of real competition. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I respectfully disagree. Make this just like a B&M tournament, where a person can trade lammers for cash.

Besides, the tournaments themselves are already overstocked. The number of multiple-seat winners won't significantly reduce the field. Do you really think a 1135 entrant WSOP is a better event than a 900 entrant WSOP?

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it good for the sport? The poker community?
The specific tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

The real question: Is it good for the sites that host the supers? The obvious answer is yes. Both the players who have won a seat and those who would have won if the repeaters weren't there come back for more which means more profit for UB, Party and Stars. Can't say that I blame them...

As for the questions you asked - it's neither good nor bad, just another way to make (or more likely, lose) money.

[curmudgeon]

Players who don't win will stop coming back! eventually
That's elementary economics and psychology.

Does the "Tragedy of the Commons" apply here?!

[CrisBrown]

Hi curmudgeon,

Cardrooms and casinos run satellites to make money on people's dream of betting small and winning big ("I got in on a $40 satellite and now I've won $2 Million!"). Their purpose is to get fish into the main pool, so the sharks have something to fight over. That's the whole reason for tournament poker; otherwise the sharks wouldn't sit down at the same table, because it's pointless to fight with other sharks when there are fish at another table. (Poker truth: Who cares if you're the 9th best player in the world when the first eight are at your table.)

But as Kurn correctly noted, the big tournaments are already overstocked, with plenty of dead money to make the game worthwhile for the top pros. Open the entry door too wide, and it's too much of a crap shoot for the pros to make it to the big money ... so THEY won't bother.

And the pros are the reason for the poker explosion of the past 18 months. Viewers don't watch the WPT or WSOP to see Joe Schmuck. They tune in to see Phil Ivey, Layne Flack, Howard Lederer, and the other top pros.

If Joe Schmuck makes it to the final table, they may root for him as an Heroic Everyman, but he's only an Heroic Everyman if people see him beat the best in the game. If he beats a final table of Nobodies ... *shrugs* ... we may as well have watched someone's Thursday night home game.

It says something about the game that the TV listings for the WPT now say "Field includes Layne Flack, Phil Ivey, and Howard Lederer." That's who people are paying to watch.

Cris

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Look at it this way. If I win one seat into a WPT event, that's cool, but in most cases, that's all it is; a chance to say I was there. Even if I'm better than 75% of the field (I'm not saying I am), I'm still likely to earn $0. Ultimately, I'll play fewer of these if that's my only realistic gain.

However, if I win a seat in the UB Aruba tourney next week, but can win others and take cash, I'm more likely to play in others because now, in addition to the "experience" of the event, I also have a higher expectation of making some real money. That means I keep playing in the rebuy events and more money goes into the pool.

[curmudgeon]

Sure people like the big name pros.
But its really the unknowns like Moneymaker, Varkonyi, Helppi (the Cinderfella story) and others (there's 1 more recent WSOP winner) that are really responsible for the growth in the tournament poker sport.
"Anybody can win!" is now a reality.

Hey, maybe those pros arent so good after all.... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Like you say, they are afraid to play in a larger field. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

One more thing.... the WSOP entry should be raised to $25k!
That will cut down the field.
There's room for both small and large field tournaments with big prize pools.

[curmudgeon]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if I win a seat in the UB Aruba tourney next week, but can win others and take cash, I'm more likely to play in others because now, in addition to the "experience" of the event, I also have a higher expectation of making some real money. That means I keep playing in the rebuy events and more money goes into the pool.



[/ QUOTE ]

As an economist and statistician I don't buy that argument.
There's other tournaments where you have a much better probability of making the money, and a much larger top prize.

By the way, that's what the majority of average players want. A chance to say "I played in the WPT tournament". /images/graemlins/cool.gif
That's what will keep them playing the game.

[CrisBrown]

Hi curmudgeon,

[ QUOTE ]
Sure people like the big name pros. But its really the unknowns like Moneymaker, Varkonyi, Helppi (the Cinderfella story) and others (there's 1 more recent WSOP winner) that are really responsible for the growth in the tournament poker sport.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Poker has exploded because of television, and people tune in to watch the big names play. Look at the abysmal ratings for BRAVO's "Celebrity Poker Challenge" -- then watch the show -- for an example of why watching Joe Schmuck (or Joe Celebrity) bumble around a table is not a recipe for long-term ratings success.

Gamblers play poker because "Anybody can win." People watch poker to see Phil Ivey pull a miracle bluff out of his backside. And it's the TV exposure which has enhanced the game's respectability.

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, maybe those pros arent so good after all....
Like you say, they are afraid to play in a larger field.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're not "afraid" to play in a larger field. They just recognize that it's not profitable to play in a much larger field. The pros don't play for ego. They play for money, and if the tournament setup doesn't give them a reasonable expectation of making money, they're not going to play.

I foresee the day coming when the WPT, like the PGA, will cap entries for most tournaments. I doubt there will be a "tour card" system, as the prize money in poker tourneys comes from the buy-ins and not from the TV advertising and sponsors. But that too may change if poker continues to grow in popularity, in which case I would expect to see a "tour card" system evolve.

From a TV producer's standpoint, it just makes financial sense to structure the tournament so that the best known players are more likely to make it to the final table -- we root for the familiar -- with one or two Joe Schmucks added for the Everyman drama. As tournament poker becomes more and more television-driven, you can expect to see changes that make it more commercially profitable ... like capping the field.

Anybody can win, but stars make great television....

Cris

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Just stating a fact. If I can't profit by winning more than one, I'm less likely to play.

[curmudgeon]

Less likely....what's that! 1 percentage point lower?!
/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[curmudgeon]

You are correct, people already interested in poker love to watch the stars play.

But its the stories like Moneymaker that turn the Media Machine into overdrive, bringing the game to NEW players, and new players into the game.

[CrisBrown]

Hi curmudgeon,

[ QUOTE ]
But its the stories like Moneymaker that turn the Media Machine into overdrive, bringing the game to NEW players, and new players into the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

What Media Machine?

So okay, PokerStars made up a bunch of ads (as UB did with Juha Helpi), but when did those ads run? During WPT and WSOP broadcasts. Not exactly "bringing the game to NEW players," since the viewers were already poker fans, or they wouldn't be watching....

My newspaper didn't cover the WSOP, nor any WPT event, and it's one of the larger newspapers in the U.S. It has had at least three in-depth (by current journalistic standards) articles about the phenomenon of televised poker, though, and none of those mentioned Moneymaker or Helpi....

I didn't see Chris Moneymaker or Juha Helpi appear on CNN, or as a guest on any sports talk shows. They might have been on local stations in their hometowns, but I certainly haven't heard of any national appearances.

So I ask again ... what Media Machine?

I guess my fundamental problem with your original post is the implication that weaker players are somehow entitled to "their shot" at WPT and WSOP events, that satellites were designed to be that opportunity, and that it's unfair for professionals to play the satellites again and again, taking away the weaker players' opportunities to play.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Despite the claims of Mike Sexton, poker is not a democratic sport. Like any other sport, by and large it's a meritocracy, and the exceptions are plutocratic (based on wealth) rather than democratic.

Sure, you can play in the WPT or WSOP: fly to the event, get a hotel room, and plunk down the $5-10K entry. Otherwise, you'd better be able to play with the very best if you hope to get a shot, and that includes during the satellites.

Cris

[curmudgeon]

If you didn't see the Moneymaker story in the national media, you are completely out of touch with the main stream news. Moneymaker was swamped when he got home. Had to change his phone number, hire a security guard (because of his wife & new baby mainly), and hire an agent!

You don't like the suggested rule change. Ok.
But you haven't really addressed the questions about what is best for the sport.

[CrisBrown]

Hi curmudgeon,

Well, I watch CNN and NewsWorld International, read my local newspaper, Newsweek, and FAZ (the German equivalent of Newsweek) and none of those mentioned Moneymaker. That's not to say some didn't, but it certainly wasn't an avalanche of coverage.

As for what's best for the sport?

In terms of legitimizing poker as a game of skill -- which is essential if we want it totally legalized -- I think it's better for the sport if people consistently see the top players at the top of the leaderboard. If unknowns are winning week in and week out, then poker looks a lot more like gambling -- where "anybody can win" with a few lucky hands -- and a lot less like a contest of skill where experts have a decided edge.

To that end, satellite and tournament structures which give an edge to skill over luck are better for the sport, and to me that includes capping the field.

Cris

[MadSci]

The only way the Commons problem can come in (that I can see) is if lucky or out of nowhere sattelite winners play crazy with their near-free tournament stacks. If swarms of them were so nuts they made the final tournament a meaningless mess, that would be bad. But at some point in even the goofiest tourney things tend to normalize.

[cferejohn]

CNN definitely mentioned the WSOP and the fact that Moneymaker won. Repeatedly. There were articles about the WSOP, mentioning Moneymaker in the SF Chronicle and the SJ Mercury. I often see ads for the WPT on other cable stations.

I wouldn't expect a magazine like Newsweek, which picks and chooses it's stories, to mention Moneymaker unless they were doing an article specifically on the poker boom. If they *did* do such an article and failed to mention him, I would think that is a inditement of Newsweek more than anything else. Not a very good magazine anyway. Read the Economist.

Many, many non-poker playing friends came and asked me about who Chris Moneymaker was and how he won (and how come it wasn't me /images/graemlins/smirk.gif), so people were definitely getting his name somewhere (I didn't do a poll to find out where...)

[slavic]

Players who don't win will stop coming back!

Gamblers suffer from a denial of reality. That they win sometimes is quite enough to keep 'em comming.

[krazyace5]

I agree, how do you think lotterys and casinos stay in business, some people always lose but they know that the next time might be their lucky break, somebody wins why not them.

[j11]

You posed the following question -

"Do you really think a 1135 entrant WSOP is a better event than a 900 entrant WSOP?"

My answer -

It does not take a math whiz to realize the product of (1135 X (the pot-portion of entry fees)) is greater than the product of(900 X (the pot-portion of entry fees)).

The added pot-value from more participants especially in a case like this (over a 26% increase in participation) can contribute to a remarkably better event. The larger event can pay more places and/or increase payments to the same number of places (i.e. - a better event overall for the poker community, if not the angle-shooters).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

How many entrants are too many?

[j11]

Again, simple logic eludes you. You wrote -

"However, if I win a seat in the UB Aruba tourney next week, but can win others and take cash, I'm more likely to play in others because now, in addition to the "experience" of the event, I also have a higher expectation of making some real money. That means I keep playing in the rebuy events and more money goes into the pool."

My response -

How can more money go into the pool when you are taking money out of the pool?

The only way the pool total can increase after you take a cash-payout is for you to continue to play qualifiers for the same tounament until you lose-back more money to the pool than your cash-payout. Realize "lose-back more money to the pool than your cash-payout" means you have to lose all site fees related to the qualifier, in addition to more than your cash-payout (i.e. - the fees for the qualifier are not part of the pool).

Simple adage - "You can't have your cake and eat it too".

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

How can more money go into the pool when you are taking money out of the pool?

More money goes into the pool each time I don't win another seat. In addition, the cash I get if I win an extra seat I will likely bring to the side games on the cruise. More money for the site to rake.

[j11]

When the entity running the tournament cannot accomodate (feed-off) more players, the entity will cap the number of entrants. Remember, the final tournament (fed by qualifying tournaments), is a marketing ploy by the host site whether B+M or Internet.

If a B+M site -

In the short-term, the site is using the tournament, trying to fill a 'dead-spot' in its annual calender by providing customers to all its gaming venues, hotel(s), restaurants, bars, night-clubs, gift-shops, spas, and all of its other outlets. In doing so, a site will often provide 'loss-leaders' to enhance or entice players and their entourages. In the long-term, the site is trying to expand its repeat, customer-base by having on-site customers enjoy their experiences at the site.

If an Internet site -

The site is using the tournament to feed its rapacious appetite for revenue - entry-fees, entry-fees, entry-fees with miniscule comps for the players from the revenues they collect.


Another fact to 'chuckle' about - sites (B+M or Internet) hosting feeder tournaments hold all 'won' entry fees in their interest-drawing accounts from time-of-deposit, until they have to issue payments to the final tournament site. While you may think the interest is insignificant, realize $10K at 3% for 6 months (average of 12-months lead to 0-months lead for the feeder tournament) pays over $150 in interest to the account of the feeder site for each entry fee won - not to the player who won the entry fees. Also, the deposits are used by the sites to maintain required, minimum-deposit levels at their financial institutions, thus freeing-up the site's own funds for other activities.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Your point about the interest on the buy-in is a good one, but doesn't support disallowing individuals from winning multiple buy-ins.

I don't think it makes sense for the site to let you take cash from them for the additional wins, but I think it does make sense for them to broker the exchange of the seat for cash from other players, which is no different from a B&M giving you lammers.