Interesting Note from Pokervoice.com

[B Dids]

"DON'T QUOTE ME.....
I have just spoke to two of the biggest names in online poker and both of them have confirmed they will NOT send ANY players to the WSOP next year....

The reason's

No Logo's on the final table
No media access to the tournament arena
No flash photography


And talk has already started to create their own championship at The Commerce Casino next year !!!"

[Sloats]

B Dids,

Did you just quote him/her?

[B Dids]

Yeah- realized that minutes after posting... surprised somebody waited so long to point it out.

I don't buy it for a second anyway...

[Sully]

If you ask me, this is the solution to the so called "problem" of too many entries at the WSOP. Online sites stop sending players to the WSOP, and entries level off...pros quit whining about online maniacs, and a bigger tournament at a different location serves the online players.

I'd be surprised if there isn't an "Online Poker Tour" supported by the major sites with a full series of events within the next few years. Qualifying would be done online, then the final x# of qualifiers play a live 2-3 day tourney.

Seems to me that everyone would be happy..

[whiskeytown]

screw the pros....they win their satellite seats by living in vegas and going to a casino, others win it in local home tourneys, and we win ours online -

if I hear one more pro bitch about too many amateurs, I'm gonna puke...you mean you didn't realize before this day that there is an influx in new blood that's a bit more reckless? - cripes

RB

[carpola]

Sounds like childish whining to me. The other sites would gladly gobble up the players that this business decision would turn away from their rooms. They'd be cutting off their noses to spite their face.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
screw the pros....they win their satellite seats by living in vegas and going to a casino, others win it in local home tourneys, and we win ours online -

if I hear one more pro bitch about too many amateurs, I'm gonna puke...you mean you didn't realize before this day that there is an influx in new blood that's a bit more reckless? - cripes

RB

[/ QUOTE ]


Prepare the toilet and check out Capone Jr's post in the Annie Duke thread.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
if I hear one more pro bitch about too many amateurs, I'm gonna puke...you mean you didn't realize before this day that there is an influx in new blood that's a bit more reckless? - cripes

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100 percent. That's why I thought maybe a pro like Negreanu or Lindgren would win this year. At least they play online a bit, so they should have been familiar with the style of play. Same goes for Matusow, and he made it pretty far.

And I'm sorry, but luck can only take someone so far. Maybe a fish can luck their way through a super-satellite. And less likely, maybe they can luck their way through a satellite to win a seat. But there's no way an "internet player" is making it this far into the tournament without knowing how to play.

Just because people have read Sklansky, Brunson, etc, doesn't mean they follow it to the letter every single hand, which is what the pros that have complained seem to expect.

As for the online site rumors, I doubt anything like that would come to pass. You think if Greg wins that we're not going to see his mug plastered on PS's site for the next year? Regardless of whether they can wear logos at the final table or not, an online site with an ounce of marketing sense will be able to market their players effectively after the tournament.

[luggie]

screw the pros bottom line is they are playin for more CASH than ever because of BAD PLAYERS (anne duke) the poker world has changed for ever so they better get used to US! dead money rules! lol

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason's

No Logo's on the final table
No media access to the tournament arena
No flash photography


[/ QUOTE ]

To that I say:
So what?
So what?
So what?

They don't or at least shouldn't give a damn about any of that. People flock to the sites to play the satalites to get an entry. People flock in and pay those tourney fees that the sites collect. They aren't giving away anything? You need to win the other players entry fees.

Any site that doesn't have WSOP satalites next year might as well close up shop now and avoid the rush. As far as a new tournament? They should do that regardless!

[3rdEye]

I can't imagine PokerStars is among the ones who won't be sending players...they're promoting their players' relationship to the WSOP every 10 freaking minutes.

[Sundevils21]

While I don't give a rats ass about the pro's, why not just raise the entry fee? It would help to limit the number of players in the field and the WSOP would no longer have a lower entry fee than the Bellagio WPT Championship. C'mon, if you're going to call yourself the WORLD SERIES OF POKER, you need to have the highest entry fee, like it's always been. I say keep a $10,000 buy in tournament and add a $25,000 buy in tournament that crowns the "World Champion".
It would be tougher for online players to qualify for the $25K event, but so what? Do satalites for both the $10K and the $25K tournaments. Does this make sense, or am I way out in right field with this one?

[Jimbo]

Just how does having the highest entry fee do a better job of determining whom is the better poker player? If anything it will indeed decrease the size of the field which will naturally decrease the chance that the best player will be able to enter.


Jimbo

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
Just how does having the highest entry fee do a better job of determining whom is the better poker player? If anything it will indeed decrease the size of the field which will naturally decrease the chance that the best player will be able to enter.

[/ QUOTE ]

The entry fee has been the same since the very first WSOP. Don't you think *eventually* the buyin should go up? Isn't that time now? When it first began $10K was a heck of a lot more than it is now, and that's how they wanted it. Should the buy in stay $10,000 in 100 years, when $10,000 is only worth say, $100 by todays standards? I think not. I think this is a good time to up the ante a little bit. Just my opinion.

[SDA004]

"Just how does having the highest entry fee do a better job of determining whom is the better poker player? If anything it will indeed decrease the size of the field which will naturally decrease the chance that the best player will be able to enter."

Are you serious? By this reasoning the entry fee's don't have any bearing on the quality of players involved. So what are you saying, a $65 dollar tourney at Foxwoods is going to attract the same quality of players that a $10,000
tourney would?? Obviously the entry fee is a huge indicator of the quality of the tournament. If the entry fee were $25,000 then only those people who could afford $25,000 would be able to compete, and this would include very rich amateurs and the professional players. And also as sundevil pointed out it would make it that much more difficult or expensive to win an online satellite.

There's a reason why when you move up stakes in poker the play gets better.

[Jimbo]

I don't remember asking for an explanation of infaltion. I was wondering how raising the entry fee increases the likelihood that the best poker player will be crowned the WSOP World Champion?

Jimbo

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? By this reasoning the entry fee's don't have any bearing on the quality of players involved. So what are you saying, a $65 dollar tourney at Foxwoods is going to attract the same quality of players that a $10,000
tourney would?? Obviously the entry fee is a huge indicator of the quality of the tournament. If the entry fee were $25,000 then only those people who could afford $25,000 would be able to compete, and this would include very rich amateurs and the professional players. And also as sundevil pointed out it would make it that much more difficult or expensive to win an online satellite.

There's a reason why when you move up stakes in poker the play gets better.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking me if I was serious after you make a post like the above? Gimme a break. By your reasoning Bill Gates is the best poker player in the world!! You silly boy, as I said all you do by decreasing the size of the field is decrease the chances that the best poker players will be able to enter the tournament. It is obvious that this is true, how could you possibly argue otherwise?

Jimbo

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember asking for an explanation of infaltion. I was wondering how raising the entry fee increases the likelihood that the best poker player will be crowned the WSOP World Champion?

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you have to start with the assumption that the 'best poker player in the world' (if such a beast really exists) is a successful player with a good sized bankroll. Assuming that is so, he should be able to afford (or get staked) a 25K or 50K or whatever entry fee. You also assume that a higher entry fee would result in fewer players.

So, assuming that the 'best player in the world' can still enter, he (or she) would probably have an easier time getting through 500 players than 2500.

It's kind of a moot point, since 'best poker player in the world' is very very situation dependent. I mean, if you really wanted the best player, you'd want to play a lot more than just tournament texas hold 'em. At best, this event might determin 'the best big buy-in long form tournament player in the world', which is a very different animal than, say 'the best limit 7 card stud cash player in the world,' and who is to say that his claim is lesser?

[Jimbo]

Good post but I believe that is most certainly a faulty initial assumption. Secondly I was referring to being crowned the WSOP World Champion which has nothing to do with identifying the mythical best poker player in the world.

Jimbo

[SDA004]

Either line of reasoning can be proven ridiculous. You could argue that by having a tournament with a billion dollar buy-in only bill gates could enter or whatever and thus he would be the best player. I could say that if you made the buy-in 5 dollars then there would be a bunch of people who do not know how to play and by increasing the price of entry you would thus weed out the players who aren't as good.

I think its pretty obvious that by increasing the entry fee the competition gets better. Don't you have to be a better player to play 200/400 than 10/20? As you ascend up the stakes the competition gets better.

By upping the ante you would weed out players who couldn't afford the buy in. And who can afford the buy-in? Well generally speaking rich pro's, the best of the best, and of course you'll have your rich amateurs as well, but there's not much you can do about that they've always had that to deal with in this tournament because its open to everybody.

Now you may say well then you're limiting the field of players and decreasing the chance of the best player truly winning. This isn't true, because if you're one of the best players but can't afford the more expensive entry fee you can win your way in through more affordable satellites and super-satellites. This way you not only limit the entries to the very best because of the price, but also you limit it by making the competition in satellites harder.

Also, when Binion set out to make this tournament the most prestigious tournament in the world he decided to make it the most expensive. I'm sure 10k was a lot when the tournament was created, far more than the avg. tournament. I'm sure his reasoning was along the same lines as mine, by making the buy-in very large you're creating a situation where only the very best can afford to enter.

[Jimbo]

Thanks for your explanation and you make some very good points. You also wrote "Also, when Binion set out to make this tournament the most prestigious tournament in the world he decided to make it the most expensive." The first WSOP was by invitation only and the initial winner was voted as being the Champion. How does today's tournament resemble Binion's inaugural event?

Jimbo

[Mike Haven]

i think you're right, Jimbo

i can't afford $10g but i can damn well afford $10, and i'd like a chance to prove that i am the best player in the world against 10,000 other players

(for those with PT, i've been unlucky so far)

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember asking for an explanation of infaltion. I was wondering how raising the entry fee increases the likelihood that the best poker player will be crowned the WSOP World Champion?


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, having a $25K entry fee doesn't increase the likelihood of the best player being crowned. Obviously, you didn't ask for an explaination of inflation, but does that mean we should ignore it? I'm sure you would agree that today $10K is nowhere near what it was when the WSOP started.I'm not saying make it a billion dollars to enter(so that bill gates...ect.), but shouldn't the WSOP folks increase it to make it the largest buy in tournament, like it's always been?
BTW, I don't think the point of the tournament is to necessarily "crown the best player". But if that is the case, why don't they lower it to $10 entry fee and have the first 1,000rounds played online. Then when it gets down to the final 1000 players, lets play live and see who wins. I don't think that is what the WSOP is all about, and I don't think you do either. I will reask my question, In 100 years should the entry fee rise? If so, why not now?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I will reask my question, In 100 years should the entry fee rise? If so, why not now?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it should be increased in the next 100 years, just not in the next decade.

Jimbo

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi B Dids:

I don't consider this source to be reliable.

Best wishes,
Mason

[B Dids]

I know- they took it down fairly quickly after it was posted. I assumed it was bad info anyway- should have made that more clear in my original post. My apologies.