WSOP - World championship or internet crapshoot?

[PokerPaul]

1800 entries for the WSOP. Many good players will last till end im sure, but many world calibre players will get sucked out on along the way, more so than in tourneys of the past.

How can the poker world crown the winner of this one tournament the "world champion".

The WSOP is not what is used to be. It used to truly be a tourney featuring the top 200 to 300 players in the world, along with a few celebrities or wealthy individuals who fancied to give it a go against the worlds best.

Either way, about 3/4 of the field were top calibre, and the overall level competition was world class.

One could honestly say the winner was world champion.

now its still a couple hundred of the best players, but the majority of the tournamet, well over 1000 entries perhaps, is made up of low buyin internet sattelite winners, other newcomers, etc.

Fact is now, its an 1800 entrant crapshoot, where the amateurs make up about 80% of the field.

How is that a world championship??

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Thank you for pointing this out! I am (mostly) the only one who has expressed similar sentiments, and with a great deal of criticism at that, for the most part.

I totally support your stance here, your observations cannot be dismissed, as they are quite obvious (to even the least astute).

al

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
your observations cannot be dismissed,

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course thay can and dismissed quite properly at that.

Super Magoo you are not. More entrys does not by itself equal a greater chance that the winner is not the better player. In fact the opposite becomes more likely. I'll let others elaborate.

Jimbo

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I'm sorry Jimbo, I respect your posts and opinions, as I have for years, I can't agree with you here. you made no effort to support your arguement at all, except to pull the sklansky wimp-clause and let others elaborate. Offer a real arguement and perhaps I'll concede your point. But for the meantime, with soooooooooooooooooo many more amateurs and unknown internet qualifiers to get past, I fail to comprehend how this makes it MORE likely that a seasoned pro will wind up the winner. There is just too much luck, particularly with a collosally huge field. If we add yet another 1000 internet nobody's, does phil or doyle or chris's or devil fish's chances go UP to win? They may go up compared to the average fish or dead money internet qualifier, but overall, the more people who enter, the less likely any one person's chance will be, no matter how good they are.

al

[daryn]

what he means is that the factor that decides whether or not an event is a "crapshoot" is only the blind structure. if the blinds are big and go up too fast, that's a crapshoot. the number of entrants doesn't have much to do with it being a crapshoot or not.

[J_V]

In a game w/ this much luck the world champion should be the points leader and the end of a season...maybe the WPT.

It's not a world championship...let's just hope i win though then i might sing a different tune.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry Jimbo, I respect your posts and opinions, as I have for years, I can't agree with you here. you made no effort to support your arguement at all, except to pull the sklansky wimp-clause and let others elaborate. Offer a real arguement and perhaps I'll concede your point. But for the meantime, with soooooooooooooooooo many more amateurs and unknown internet qualifiers to get past, I fail to comprehend how this makes it MORE likely that a seasoned pro will wind up the winner. There is just too much luck, particularly with a collosally huge field. If we add yet another 1000 internet nobody's, does phil or doyle or chris's or devil fish's chances go UP to win? They may go up compared to the average fish or dead money internet qualifier, but overall, the more people who enter, the less likely any one person's chance will be, no matter how good they are.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it that you just don't understand, or you don't want to admit you're wrong?

While you are terribly focused on the winning aspect of this tournament, what the increase in number of players does do is increase the EV for the more skilled player.

Why you have your panties in a bunch over this is beyond me, it isn't like you are playing in it.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The bottom line is this...

if another unknown $1 or $40 or $650 internet qualifier wins, it will probably be good for poker (in a purely EV manner), it will drive up the EV of the best players, but it will continue to make poker (and the forums) an overall less enjoyable experience for players like me (and those like me) who long for the way it was.

I find the poker boom to be lessening the enjoyability of poker, and doing so rapidly and perhaps irreversably. Poker for me has always been about fun first and foremost. While I generally play 10-20 and some 15-30 or 20-40 these days, I'd still rather go back to the good ol' days when I played mostly 4-8 kill, because I had more fun back then.

It's not a personal attack on anyone, it's just the way I see it. Others share my viewpoint, tho we are fewer than those who share a different one. That's all fine, but I don't want to turn this thread into an attack fest (all too easy these days), thus this will probably be the last I say of it.

al

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think this concept, that the influx of internet players somehow cheapens the event, is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Lets start with the fact that poker tournaments, as they exist today, are sort of an aberration of real poker. Benny Binion created the format witth rising blinds or limits, specifically to force action because otherwise a tournament with only 10 world-class players would last weeks.

So it is a given that a poker tournament has a bigger short-term luck factor than a cash game.

Now lets' look at the WSOP prior to the internet poker boom. It was X number of pros and Y number of rich folks or celebrities who wanted to take a shot.

What does the internet boom add? Hundreds of entrants. How did those entrants get in? By winning poker tournaments.

Heaven forbid we cheapen the WSOP by actually letting people in who win poker tournaments. What apostasy!

I'm sorry we spoiled Doyle's & Slim's & Puggy's little country club.

Count me as one who thinks the internet boom is not just good for poker, but good for the WSOP as well.

[PokerPaul]

Daryn, you bring up a good point.

The blind structures and how fast they rise make it more of a crapshoot, because you don't have the time to play your good cards and strategy, you have to play with what your dealt and pray it holds up in order to remain competitive throughout the tournament.

At least the WSOP main event somewhat reduces the blind structure due to it being run over the course of 5-6 days. Unfortuantely, at 1800+ entries, its still a crapshoot just due to the sheer volume of players. Having to win every single one of your allins over 6 days is a crapshoot, or if you are LUCKY enough to have built such a massive stack you never have to go allin.

Now, as for all of the other WSOP events which are basically all 1 day events. Even those events are being flooded by masses of entries, way more than ever before. However, since they are still on the one day time limit, guess what....they have to accelerate the limit increases.....which makes those events a total crapshoot as well.

[PokerPaul]

just wait a second kurn.....i never said that internet poker was not good for poker.......what its done for poker is probably one of the greatest things the internet has done for any industry.

Heck, if it werent for internet poker, i would just be the occasional recreational fish who ventures into a couple cardrooms for 3 days for my annual vegas weekend, as that was the only time and place that offered me a chance to play.

All im saying though is that this mass influx into that specific tourney has turned it into more of a crapshoot than a true world championship...thats all.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

But that's what I disagree with. I don't think the influx of people who actually have to win a poker tournament to get in makes it more of a crapshoot. If anything, it raises the level of skill needed to win. Now, that doesn't mean the winner is the most skillful player, there's still the increased luck factor involved in tournaments. That's not the point.

The point is, the internet players, have far more tournament experience than the non-pros of, say, ten years ago. Thus they provide a tougher challenge for the pros in the tournament format.

The biggest hurdle for the pro is if he gets heads-up with the amateur at the final table. Then all the pressure is on the pro. He's supposed to win.

There are people in the internet crowd playing this year who have most likely played more big multis in the past 18 months than the WSOP champions of the 90's played in their lives.

In fact, if anything, the internet players have a tougher time adapting to long levels. In that way, a more savvy player can tune into a "turbo" style player and use the long levels to pick him off.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is this...

if another unknown $1 or $40 or $650 internet qualifier wins, it will probably be good for poker (in a purely EV manner), it will drive up the EV of the best players, but it will continue to make poker (and the forums) an overall less enjoyable experience for players like me (and those like me) who long for the way it was.

I find the poker boom to be lessening the enjoyability of poker, and doing so rapidly and perhaps irreversably. Poker for me has always been about fun first and foremost. While I generally play 10-20 and some 15-30 or 20-40 these days, I'd still rather go back to the good ol' days when I played mostly 4-8 kill, because I had more fun back then.

It's not a personal attack on anyone, it's just the way I see it. Others share my viewpoint, tho we are fewer than those who share a different one. That's all fine, but I don't want to turn this thread into an attack fest (all too easy these days), thus this will probably be the last I say of it.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

These are obviously just your feelings and the point is well taken.

I guess I am curious, how does the Poker Boom make the game less enjoyable for you? It's still the same freaking game?

I guess that makes no sense to me.

I heard someone say the other day in a 1/2 game online "I never would have played that had this been a higher limit".

This could have quite possibly been the most assanine comment I ever heard, the game is the same, no matter what the limits are. If it's a bad hand to play given all other circumstances equal in a 20/40 game, it's a bad hand to play for 1/2.

Anyway, please don't take this personally. You obviously are not enjoying poker for whatever reason and you are blaming in on the influx of new players. I guess I am trying to find out what that has to do with your lessening enjoyment of the game.