"World Series Champion" Title losing its appeal?

[cormacie]

Within the past 3-4 years poker has boomed. It is now a global epidemic. This is due to internet card rooms. But do any of you think the World Series title has lost its appeal? There are so many people who have the opportunity to play the Champion now. All over the world. If the champion keeps playing online which I'm sure they will, any one of us has the opportunity to play at their table. And maybe even beat them. The lifestyle has changed. Before you would have to dedicate your life for such an opportunity. Is it really that big a deal to play with the best in the world any more? I'm not talking about any particular champion. Just the direction the game is heading in.
Thanks,
Cormac, Ireland.

[La Brujita]

Cormacie,

I think you could well argue it is more appealing due to the larger global fame you will get. I do hear your point, if you watch Chan in Rounders it is like he is Darth Vader or something. He is untouchable.

But the fact that you will be able to play with Greg at Pokerstars is good for Pokerstars, Greg and the game of poker itself I believe.

Best regards

[Freudian]

I only think it's healthy that the 'pros' have been de-mythified. They can and often will find more than their match in online players and non-pros.

[DogFace]

I think it's still a major achievement, though I consider what Gus Hansen and Howard Lederer have done on the WPT to be more impressive than winning the WSOP. Winning one huge tournament is great, but excelling in several major tournaments is probably more impressive.

[cormacie]

I have allot of respect for people who make a living out of poker. It's such a different lifestyle to the average person. I would hate for a pro to lose half his bankroll to some wealthy person who is playing just for fun and hits a lucky streak. I know, if the pro can't take advantage of this he/she is not much of a player, but luck can me against you greatly sometimes. It definitely does make it more of an achievement winning the WS now, compared to the first game with what? 10 entrants?

[carpola]

[ QUOTE ]
But do any of you think the World Series title has lost its appeal?

[/ QUOTE ]

More and more people play in the big one every year. It's becoming more appealing to people yearly not less

[David Sklansky]

The pros are still unquestionably better than all but a very few amateurs. But in the case of tournaments that only translates into something like double the EV of a random entrant. When they are so largely outnumbered this fact is hard to see in the short run.

[Army Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
I only think it's healthy that the 'pros' have been de-mythified. They can and often will find more than their match in online players and non-pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, right. As long as you can continue to get 12-15 times as many online players as tourney pros in a given event, I guess they will continue to do relatively well.

[TheGrifter]

A good example of this is the Party Poker Million tournament series. Despite the fact that PartyPoker registers hundreds of people, the pros have generally made it very far and Kathy Liebert and Howard Lederer have won it (not sure who won the other one).

[Sundevils21]

I'm pretty sure Eric Lingren won the other PPM.

[Morbo]

So maybe the title has lost it's appeal, it will take long before we see a back to back champion again. So what?

This is still a $10k buyin event open for all and with the biggest payout on the face of the planet. After all, poker is a game of money played with cards, not vice versa. Therefore, everything is still as it should be.

[salty]

hey Cormac,I disagree,out of the poker playing population now and in the future only say 50-70 more people will be made WSOP champ in my lifetime and I am only 31.

i played in the fitzwilliam club in Dublin recently and was seated next to Noel Furlong (wsop champ) in a tournament and I have to say I felt honoured,its not every sport/game that you get to play a ledgend.

[AceKQJT]

uhhhhh. No.

[J_V]

"The pros are still unquestionably better than all but a very few amateurs."

Buzz. Assuming I catch your drift right, this statement is probably really wrong. How many Mike McClain's are out there, that aren't famous and are much better than most "big names."

Mike Laing is a well-known pro. LOL.


Whenever there has been a battle of pecking order, the best internet players have proven to be equal to or better than most of the pros. Exceptions are Ivey, Harmon etc. who beat everyone at everything.

For those of you that remember the uber-high heads up matches at WSEX, only Jennifer Harmon proved to be as good as the online champs (madcow, erik123, bobcards). Of course not all of them played.

However, the best pros are very good, but so are the best onine tourney players (and there are more than a few).

[Freudian]

Which accounts for the successes of amateurs at final tables lately, even with grizzled pros against them?

I haven't said pros are bad. They are pros because they have shown they are winning players. I just don't think they have a superhuman ability to calculate and/or read other players. What mainly separates them is that unlike pretty much everyone else they have a life situation that allows them to attend pretty much all WPT/WSOP tournaments. I think given the chance, quite a few so called no-names would have a good chance at reaching multiple WPT final tables if they only had a chance to attend all of them. Moneymaker has a 1st and a 2nd in how many big tourney starts? Compare that number of starts to a Phil Hellmuth, Phil Ivey etc. I don't accept the notion that X is better simply because he is on the tour. And if we compare to the lower tier of pros that haven't had even close to the success compared to Moneymaker despite a vast higher number of tries: why on earth would we rank Annie Duke higher than Chris Moneymaker? Is she the pro and he the bumbling amateur?

I have no doubt that Fossilman rests on as solid a poker foundation as the vast majority of the pros. While no doubt things went his way this WSOP (they have to for a guy to win, pro or not) it is not a fluke he is wearing that bracelet right now. And there are lots of players that might be doing what he/Moneymaker etc have done in the future, they just need to get a chance at competing.

And I still think the pros are getting de-mythified day by day, despite their desperate attempts at the opposite.

[J_V]

Very well said. People have a need to mythify pros. They want the best to have superhuman abilities whether it be poker, basketball, or anything else. I think it ties in with societies drive to find heroes.

[OrangeCat]

[ QUOTE ]
But do any of you think the World Series title has lost its appeal?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. In every sport there is a prestige event. In horse racing it’s the Kentucky derby (or to Europeans, the Arc), in tennis it's Wimbledon, in American auto racing it’s the Daytona 500. I could go on but I think you get my drift. The WSOP is the prestige event in poker and will be for years to come. I doubt the WSOP will be replaced by an internet event because it isn’t the prize money or number of entries that make the WSOP the top event in poker, its prestige. The prestige of the WSOP took decades to build its going to stay on top for many yeas to come.

IOW, Bellagio, Poker Stars or WPT could offer a 10M prize but the most prestigious event would still be the WSOP. WSOP is a tradition.

< Is it really that big a deal to play with the best in the world any more? >

I’m sure there are people who have made buckets of money at poker who have never entered the WSOP. That does not take away from the WSOP - it’s still the most important tournament there is.

Excellent post by Freudian.

= OrangeCat

[Cruzincat]

"A good example of this is the Party Poker Million tournament series. Despite the fact that PartyPoker registers hundreds of people, the pros have generally made it very far and Kathy Liebert and Howard Lederer have won it (not sure who won the other one)."

The difference between the pros and the rest is that the pros enter the tournament at the last possible stage, by paying the top dollar entry fee. They are working from their "bankroll" and the entry fee, as well as their travel expenses, are deductible from their income. The chances that the pros will get knocked out early on is diminished.
There may come a time when organizers limit the number of seats so that there are fewer satellites for the amateurs to get entry into the tournaments. That might be difficult to do, but it may happen.

[HavanaBanana]

[ QUOTE ]
But in the case of tournaments that only translates into something like double the EV of a random entrant.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be interesting how high EV you think the best player in the WSOP had over the average player in the field.
If it was only double of a random entrant then you should not bet anyone unless the odds was 1250 or more in a 2500 field, quite interesting as the lowest odds was about 125 on most sites.

ToT

[chrisjp]

I agree with OrangeCat. Excellent post by Freudian. He expressed my views much better than I ever could.

Chris