It's time to scrap the main $10,000 WSOP event

[BlueBear]

The WSOP has been the premier tournament to determine the poker world championship for 3 decades plus i believe. Although the US price level has risen to approximately 5 times that of the early 1970's, the main event buy-in has always been just worth $10,000 (to my understanding). So for the WSOP to maintain it's prestige since the 1970's, the buy-in needs to be upperly-adjusted to reflect the trend of inflating prizes.

Secondly, the $10,000 has allowed many internet poker sites to send players over to Las Vegas. I believe the number of Internet players will be close to half of all the players this year. Increasing the buy-in would only make the tournament more prestigious with a higher proportion of hard-core B&M high stake pros rather than the situation now where it's highly diluted by internet players. After all, the purpose of the WSOP is to find the BEST player in the world and not turn into a crap-shoot it's slowly becoming.

So I say, it's time to scrap the $10,000 NL event and substitute it with a $50,000 or even $100,000 main event. For these two main reasons:

1) $10,000 is not significant money as it was in the 1970's.
2) To reduce the likelihood it will turn into a crapshoot with the flood of internet players, after all, we're talking about finding a world champion here.

Flame away.

BlueBear

[thirddan]

i like it...although 50k or 100k, may be too much, i think the wpt got it about right with a 25k buy in tourney...

[Sincere]

I agree, $50,000 seems about right. Who cares if thats to much for internet qualifiers. The WSOP has lost its prestige IMO. This tournament should be for high stakes experts or wealthy people who want to throw their money away. $10,000 is not high stakes anymore. This tournament should not be for the middle class or the average Joe that qualifies online.

[La Brujita]

I like the 25K idea.

[SaintAces]

[BlueBear]

The stakes of numerous side games are probably higher than the WSOP buyin. For a premier tournament to determine the world poker champion, surely, that can't be right.

BlueBear

[jmark]

I've seen alot of posts on this lately. I believe the WSOP only becomes a crap shoot if the blinds start out large and rise too fast. Just increasing the total number of players doesn't make it more of a crap shoot.

Isn't it more prestigious to be able to beat everyone in the world, rather than just the 100 people who can afford to plop down $50k for one tournament? Some guy sitting at home may be the best poker player ever, but no one will ever find out if he can't afford the entry fee.

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
The stakes of numerous side games are probably higher than the WSOP buyin. For a premier tournament to determine the world poker champion, surely, that can't be right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. Your thoughts on inflation are 100% correct IMO.

[banditbdl]

In the early 90s the 10,000 buy-in was already effectively much less relative to when the tournament started because of inflation but no one really talked about raising the buy-in. That's because the WSOP didn't have any competition, everybody knew that it was the Big One and that was enough. Big time pros played in it not just to win the money but because they wanted to be known as the World Champ, when it was the only game in town raising the buy-in wasn't going to change anything.

However, that's no longer the case. Since the WPT came along the WSOP is no longer the only game in town. The WPT finale has the bigger buy-in of 25k, all the big names play in it, and is being played at the new Center of the Poker universe at the Bellagio and has a chance to usurp the king's throne if they aren't careful. If the new ownership of the World Series isn't careful they might get passed up in the next few years. I think matching the Bellagio's 25k buy-in or perhaps surpassing it to 50k is an essential step in their keeping a grip on crowning the World Champ.

[James Boston]

I'm sure the pros prefer the large prize pool over the prestige. Still, raising the buy in won't detere internet satellites and the like. I played in a super-satellite for the WPO. It gave away 6 seats. All a $25,000 buy does is change that to 2 seats. $50,000 makes it 1. Satellites won't go away, and no poker game is a crap shoot.

[Andy B]

One of my favorite books is The Biggest Game in Town by A. Alvarez. It centers around the 1981 World Series, the second of three won by the late Stu Ungar. Even back then, the side games were bigger than the "main event." This is not a recent phenomenon.

[Sincere]

Yes but the super high side games of today, like 2000-4000 dwarf the side games of 1981. Yet the WSOP buy-in of $10,000 remains the same. Love that book tho.

[baggins]

25k isn't a bad idea. however, a tournament with more players isn't necessarily a bad thing. a well-structured tournament isn't going to be a crapshoot no matter how many players there are. in fact, the more players there are, the longer the tournament, and the better players will have more time for the 'long run' odds to even out and bear the better player out. i mean, a one-table satelite and you have to build your stack quickly and play tight but you move upt he pay scale much quicker when there's only 9 other players to knock out. but if you gotta outlast 1000 other players, your endurance and that of your game will be tested much more. and endurance is a huge part of making somebody the best poker player in the world.

anyway, i don't think the prestige of winning the Big One has gone down just because inflation means that more people can play the game. that's one of the greatest things about poker is that you don't have to be rich to be good. if more people play the WSOP it just makes it that much bigger of an event and the poker world just gets that much more notoriety and publicity etc. it's still a grueling tournament that requires significant levels of poker skill to be a competitive threat to your opponenets.

[AJo Go All In]

this is silly. you want the average joe being able to play in the wsop. if winning the wsop was not a possibility for the average joe, then poker would not be nearly as popular.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
this is silly. you want the average joe being able to play in the wsop. if winning the wsop was not a possibility for the average joe, then poker would not be nearly as popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

scrub

[Peter G]

The wsop is and will remain the biggest tournament around, ask almost any poker player who won the wsop and they will be able to answer, ask the same question about any wtp and I am sure alot less will answer.
Imo $10000 is still alot of money for the average joe to enter a tournament but with the entry being 1500 plus the prize pool will be a record and certainly boost the profile of the wsop brand name. Next year look out for a 2000 plus entry with online pokerrooms surplying alot more entrys.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
the purpose of the WSOP is to find the BEST player in the world and not turn into a crap-shoot it's slowly becoming.


[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly? How about extremely rapidly!

Half the players from the internet? Just half? there's going to probably be 1200 this year, making it something like the party poker 1,000,000 guaranteed tournaments. Full of idiots going all-in with A6o and a pair of threes when faced with two raises etc etc. While they may be dead money, they're going to increase the variance greatly and wreak havoc on many of the actual "best" players in the world. It's one thing to have a few bad players in the tournament, a few bad beats are bound to occur with bad, and sometimes even good players. But add 700 or so idiots or near idiots into the mix....

So I shant flame you. Instead I'll jump on the bandwagon.

Because of what you are saying, I have not tried even once to get a seat. I am not really interested! Next year I will probably enter one or two of the smaller, pre-finals WSOP events, but not the finals. I am interested in the $1500 no limit and the stud / limit hold'em 50-50 and maybe the stud-8. But the main event, the "internet special," is not going to be on my agenda next year either.

al

[Homer]

More players does not necessarily make it more of a crapshoot.

[Ray Zee]

the reason the buyin did not get raised was because of the reporting act. if someone wanted to enter the wsop with a cash buyin the casino would have to report the transaction if over the current figure.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the pros prefer the large prize pool over the prestige.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a low estimate of 1000 players this year, the pool would be $10,000,000. With a $25,000 buy-in, 400 players would generate the same pool. The on-line poker rooms would send fewer players, but probably still the same % of that 400, and the average joe would still have a shot at winning a seat.

[Poker blog]

There goes the government screwing things up again.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
With a low estimate of 1000 players this year, the pool would be $10,000,000. With a $25,000 buy-in, 400 players would generate the same pool. The on-line poker rooms would send fewer players, but probably still the same % of that 400, and the average joe would still have a shot at winning a seat.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ben the amount of money being the same becomes irrelevant since the ratio of fish to pros would be lower. Why would a pro rather play against stiffer competition for the same payoff? No reason at all, other than Phil Helmuth who might like the WSOP be a heads up playoff between he and Varkoni it seems plausible that the pros would want more weak competition not less. As for what the railbirds want, screw them, they are not paying the entry fee.

[Ulysses]

Al,

Final table of PartyPoker Million:

Stephen Zolotow (apparently a B&M/tourney Vegas pro)
Scotty Nguyen (Vegas B&M/tourney pro)
Barry Greenstein (world class high limit/tourney player)
Daniel Negreanu (Vegas B&M/tourney pro)
Erick Lindgren (Vegas B&M/tourney pro)
Chris Hinchcliffe (online player)

Lederer, Juanda and other lesser known pros were also in the top 20.

How do you explain that?

Now, sure, this was limit, so it's slightly different than an NL tourney. But what do you think about the UB and Stars events? I don't buy your assumption when it comes to tourneys w/ a decent amount of starting chips and slowly escalating blinds. The good players know how to adjust. That's always been the case at the World Series - they look to get in only as heavy favorites. As things progress, they mix it up more.

I do agree w/ you when you're talking about tourneys like Party's 1000 chip 1000+ entry $20-300 tournaments. The variance in those things is definitely sky-high due to the structure and size of field.

[Easy E]

The WSOP has lost its prestige IMO.

What makes you think that?

This tournament should be for high stakes experts or wealthy people who want to throw their money away....This tournament should not be for the middle class or the average Joe that qualifies online.


Why, exactly, you elitist swine?

And if you think ten grand is not high stakes to throw away on one tournament entry, more power to you.

[Easy E]

again, bluebear, why is the world poker champion only about buy-in for you?

[Easy E]

I thought that was the threshold? Didn't it have to be 9,990 or something to avoid the banking rules?

[Easy E]

no $3M for Al to share with us, then.

[Easy E]

I do agree w/ you when you're talking about tourneys like Party's 1000 chip 1000+ entry $20-300 tournaments. The variance in those things is definitely sky-high due to the structure and size of field.

Are we assuming that all online qualifiers are crappy players?

I agree that you have a larger pool of poorer players that are involved now, but other than the variance problems, isn't this a GOOD thing?

[Easy E]

that's one of the greatest things about poker is that you don't have to be rich to be good.

And in the interests of poker, bringing more good players out of the woodwork isn't a bad thing, is it?

[Easy E]

I think matching the Bellagio's 25k buy-in or perhaps surpassing it to 50k is an essential step in their keeping a grip on crowning the World Champ.

And I think that exposing the fallacy of a "World Champ" coming out of a single tournament is one of the greatest gifts the inflated player pool has given us.

[Easy E]

I don't necessarily have a problem with raising the buy-in, as long as no one tries to claim that this somehow 'improves' the prestige of the tournament and the winner thereof.

People claiming that they are world champs (this applies to pro sports as well, but that's another topic) based on one event in one year are fooling themselves.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I do agree w/ you when you're talking about tourneys like Party's 1000 chip 1000+ entry $20-300 tournaments. The variance in those things is definitely sky-high due to the structure and size of field.

Are we assuming that all online qualifiers are crappy players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure where you got that from my post. I was just pointing out my opinion that in a tourney w/ a huge field, relatively low starting chips, and rapidly escalating blinds, it becomes more of a crapshoot and the skilled player has less of an advantage. Depending on how poor the field is, this tourney could still be very +EV, but it's likely to take a lot more tourneys to get anywhere close to your expectation.

The main point of my response, though, was to question Al's claim that with all these "crazy" online "WPT" players, these big tourneys like the WSOP main event are becoming crapshoots that "wreak havoc" on the best players. Yet, somehow, at the Party Poker Million, which is almost entirely populated w/ online qualifiers, five out of the six players at the final table were players recognized as top tourney players. Seems like the best players may not be as concerned about the "idiots screwing up the tournaments" as Al is, instead taking pleasure in the increased overlay and bigger paydays.

[banditbdl]

Oh I agree that a "World Champ" is indeed a fallacy, but it is part of their traditional marketing of the World Series and something I'm sure they would want to hold onto.

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
this is silly. you want the average joe being able to play in the wsop. if winning the wsop was not a possibility for the average joe, then poker would not be nearly as popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

The average joe is not going to pay $10,000 either. The attraction for the avergae joe is the low entry fee satellite that gets parlayed into the entry fee.

A $25,000 entry fee could paradoxically make the tournament attract even more players by making the prize pool that much bigger.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
A $25,000 entry fee could paradoxically make the tournament attract even more players by making the prize pool that much bigger.


[/ QUOTE ]

On what planet?

[Mano]

At some time in the future, bumping up the entry fee may become a good thing. But, at the moment, I think increasing the fee would hurt the tourney pro's more than the internet qualifiers. The online sites will adjust their play-in satellite structures so the online players will still be able to qualify for a relatively small amount, whereas many tourney pro's who actually have to pony up the entire buyin fee may be shut out. I also think it is advantageous in a tourney (just as in a ring game) for the expert player to have lots of inexperienced players in the field. The ability to adjust to new playing conditions is one of the expert players greatest skills. In a tournament with a structure like the WSOP, if players are constantly getting their money in with the worst of it they will not get too far. The experts will adjust early in the tourney and not risk their stacks with marginal edges. Of course, the occassional recreational player will hit a rush and go deep into the tournament, but that is a good thing. If the novices thought they had no chance, they would not play and the tournament would not be nearly as lucrative to the top players. I think the vast majority of top players view the exploding popularity of poker, and the number of marginal players entering the final event as a very good thing. I rarely hear reports of the top players complaining that the play was too poor for them to have a chance of winning.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
whereas many tourney pro's who actually have to pony up the entire buyin fee may be shut out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many tourney pros play sats for entry, both live and online.

[ QUOTE ]
I rarely hear reports of the top players complaining that the play was too poor for them to have a chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that?


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Robert Varkonyi
2. Chris Moneymaker
3. 1400+ entrants this year
4. With Bellagio's WPT Championship at $25k buy-in, the WSOP isnt even the biggest tournament in town anymore
just to name a few.

[Easy E]

1. Robert Varkonyi- <font color="blue"> okay, I can agree on this one somewhat, from what little I know about him coming via television. Are you saying that any clown can beat hundreds of other players without a problem? </font>

2. Chris Moneymaker- <font color="blue"> still think he's a complete chump, given his results this year? You might want to look at some of the other champs and what hands they got lucky on in order to win. Chris Fergeuson (sp?) pops to mind immediately. </font>

3. 1400+ entrants this year- <font color="blue"> and what's your point here? Large entries means poor quality? I would think it would be the reverse- are you more skilled beating 5 people or 500? </font>

4. With Bellagio's WPT Championship at $25k buy-in, the WSOP isnt even the biggest tournament in town anymore
just to name a few. <font color="blue"> Estimates of 1600 entrants and 3RD PLACE prize being $1M or more... define "biggest tournament" please? </font>

[Easy E]

So I say, it's time to scrap the $10,000 NL event and substitute it with a $50,000 or even $100,000 main event

Are you saying any pro wouldn't take on more variance to get a shot at an estimated $6M for the top three places (1600 players)? And would not prefer that financial level as opposed to raising the buy-in and cutting the field by more than 1/3?

Just curious.

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that any clown can beat hundreds of other players without a problem?


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
1400+ entrants this year- and what's your point here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of like to think of it like how Jesse May describes it in Shut Up and Deal.

[ QUOTE ]
Take a monkey, sit him down at a typewriter, and let him bang away at the keys at random. Most of what he types will be gybberish, but in ther among all the "xzfl*" and stuff will eventually be a word or maybe even a sentence that makes sense to you. Take more monkeys, give them each a typewriter and more time, and chances are greater that one of them will come out with something recognizable. And if you take an infinite number of mokeys and an infinite supply of typewriters for and infinite duration of time, somewhere at some time one of the monkeys will type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know his example is much more extreme than poker, but if you think about it and apply it to these huge tournaments of 1000+ entrants it makes sense. If you have 200 experts and 1000 monkeys, One of the monkeys is going to win the majority of the time. It has happend for 2 years in a row. Dont get me wrong Im not saying that everyone else in the WSOP besides the 200 experts are monkeys. Just using it as an example.

[Easy E]

One of the monkeys is going to win the majority of the time. It has happend for 2 years in a row

Just because he was lucky doesn't make him a monkey. Let's judge CM's ability after another few years of playing first.

Not sure if I agree with your "1000 monkeys win the majority of the time" premise either. But, if it takes 4-figure entry numbers for a few years to prove the point, I guess we can judge that mid-decade as well.

[pretender2k]

I agree but there is one problem with the logic. Many players in the past (correct me if I am wrong) have gotten to the WSOP through sattelites. Raising the entry fee would only make it more saturated with internet players because it is easier to run huge sattelite tournaments ( 3 to 5 thousand person tournaments) online than in a B&amp;M because the internet sites can automatically kick people around as tables as people are eliminated, this would be a nightmare in a B&amp;M. The internet sites can also run them 24/7 because they almost always have that many people available to play. To schedule enough sattelites to cover the higher fee would be impossible for B&amp;M's because that would take all their floor space all the time. So by raising the entry fee you reduce the amount of players that don't get there from the internet.

Maybe this is just an inevitable evolution in poker. Besides it is gonna become so commercial while peoples interest in the game is there that it makes good TV to see some guy that bought in for a buck and made it all the way. Why do you think so many people are watching WPT, it certainly isn't any intelligent knowledge of the game. I work in a casino and people are talking about WPT all the time. The funny thing is they think playing poker is like playing other casino games. They still think it is all about luck so I encourage them to try it to keep the fish population alive. They don't think anything of blowing a C-note for a couple of hours of "entertainment" and these are the people I want at my table. The kind of people that walk away from a BJ table $50 bucks out and say something like "Well that's gambling."

[pretender2k]

"I rarely hear reports of the top players complaining that the play was too poor for them to have a chance of winning."

Wait until Hellmuth gets taken out by one of them early. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[pretender2k]

I have training in this area it is not reported until $10,000.01. I hadn't thought of that aspect of it. You are right, the information collection would be a nightmare.

[over_c]

But isn't there at least one (maybe more, I don't get the Travel Channel) WPT tournament with a buy-in over $10000? How do they handle the paperwork? Obviously they aren't getting 1000+ people to play in it, but if the WSOP buy-in was $25k they wouldn't be getting as many people either.