Re: No S.H.O.E.? No H.O.R.S.E?
 

[ QUOTE ]
At least they brought back 2-7, and razz. Nice to see some more non holdem events.

[/ QUOTE ]

They cut out 1 Stud8 though. In 2005 there were a $1000 and a $2000. This year only a $1000. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] I could only play in the $1000 last year and looked forward to 2 of them in 2006.

Re: 2006 WSOP Main Event now published
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do we really believe that the main-event will get 8,000 players next year?
My guess would be about 5,600 again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right. In the neighborhood of 5K sounds right. I think 2005 was the peak of this. I don't see a big downswing really fast, but I think the "reality" of the true difficulty of the game (and long odds on hitting the money for the "anyone can win" crowd) is coming to light for the masses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I will respectfully disagree. With the actual schedule out now, all the internet sites will start cranking up their tournaments for seats. Between that the increase in WSOPC events and Harrah's marketing machine, I think 8,000 is easily do-able and will be reached.

Re: No S.H.O.E.? No H.O.R.S.E?
 

I wasn't happy at that, either. Sure, they kept 2-7, probably to keep the big pros from creating too much of a fuss.

There seem to be a lot of events that don't get their own days--they're running across a Hold'em event. Of course, it would make sense to have, say, the Seniors event or the Ladies event across one of the big $5000 ones, since relatively few players would want to play in both. July 12 is an example of that.

However, I have some issues with July 15, 19, and 24. The stud championship, the $3000 Omaha-8 tourney, and the Stud-8 tournament are running against $2500 PLH, $3000 Limit Hold'em, and $1500 Limit Shootout, respectively. I think a lot of players who would otherwise go to the non-Hold'em events are going to get sucked in...because there will be more dead money in those events.

I would have much rather seen some of the low-level Hold'em events cut out. In their place, I would have had some more $10000 events--in Stud, Limit Hold'em, and Omaha-8--plus $3000 or so HORSE and half-Stud half-Hold'em events. I'd also like a Young Guns tournament, for under-25s or under-27s, structured like the Ladies or Seniors events.

Re: No S.H.O.E.? No H.O.R.S.E?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't happy at that, either. Sure, they kept 2-7, probably to keep the big pros from creating too much of a fuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel Negreanu's latest blog wasn't happy about all the holdem events, saying that poker is dying (except for holdem). Supposedly, Harrah's were going to talk with various pros about changes to the WSOP, I'd assume adding more mixed games would've been in their agenda. There are still 8 more months that the schedule could be changed.

Re: No S.H.O.E.? No H.O.R.S.E?
 

You would think with 6-max limit being all the rage on the internet now they would have added a shorthanded limit event. It appears they're all NL though!

Re: 2006 WSOP Main Event now published
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do we really believe that the main-event will get 8,000 players next year?
My guess would be about 5,600 again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right. In the neighborhood of 5K sounds right. I think 2005 was the peak of this. I don't see a big downswing really fast, but I think the "reality" of the true difficulty of the game (and long odds on hitting the money for the "anyone can win" crowd) is coming to light for the masses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I will respectfully disagree. With the actual schedule out now, all the internet sites will start cranking up their tournaments for seats. Between that the increase in WSOPC events and Harrah's marketing machine, I think 8,000 is easily do-able and will be reached.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just think it's silly that people think the WSOP will suddenly flatten.

2001: 613
2002: 631 (2.9% increase)
2003: 839 (33.0% increase)
2004: 2,576 (207.0% increase)
2005: 5,619 (118.1% increase)

Getting to 8,000 players would only require a 42.4% increase over the 2005 #s.

The trend is still upwards

Re: No S.H.O.E.? No H.O.R.S.E?
 

DN indeed sounds pissed in his latest blog.

I actually think it wouldn't be too hard for him to get the changes he wants, with a little work.

If he gets a stable of say 12 or more known pros with him, which I don't think would be too hard given that many people who love the game agree with his views, and they all promise to boycott the WSOP, I think they could get Harrah's to cave to them.

Re: No S.H.O.E.? No H.O.R.S.E?
 

[ QUOTE ]
...they all promise to boycott the WSOP, I think they could get Harrah's to cave to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Negreanu and other pros learned their lesson on this tactic when they tried it on Poker Superstars II.

Re: No S.H.O.E.? No H.O.R.S.E?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Negreanu and other pros learned their lesson on this tactic when they tried it on Poker Superstars II.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Anyway, most players want low-buyin Hold'em games, so Harrah's will give that to them.

If a bunch of pros really wanted to take a stab at this schedule (and I wouldn't blame them), then starting a whole different festival with more variety and higher buy-ins would be the tactic I would use.

Re: 2006 WSOP Main Event now published
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what fraction of people who were able to take 1 week off this year for their ME seat won't be able to take off 10-15 days next year. Any guesses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me preface this by saying I have a rather nice job, with very friendly and understanding people. However:

When I went to get the time off for this year's WSOP ME, it was quite the strange experience when I went into my boss's office to let him know I was taking off for a week to go play poker; while he was okay with it, it certainly wasn't the most comfortable experience of my life. And I get along with him rather well; honestly, I'd have been better off saying I was going to spend a week at the beach than I was saying I was heading off to play a card game. My boss isn't quite attuned to popular culture (which probably describes many in managerial positions) had no clue what the hell the WSOP is, and why in the world I was skipping out of work for a week to go play in it.

Not sure how in the world I could ever take two weeks off with the reason being poker (I do however, get two weeks of vacation time every year - which bring me to my next point):

For those of us with wives (even without children), the situation is even stickier. I don't know many wives who are okay with their husbands taking off for two weeks; nor do I know many wives who want their husbands using all their vacation time to play poker, rather than take a family vacation. My wife is fully supportive of my poker hobby, but certainly doesn't enjoy being left home alone for a week. Not having children, I have the luxury of being able to bring my wife with me (provided she can get the time off, which she was able to this year, although again, it meant the hassel of her reorganizing some projects at work). I can only imagine the difficult decisions that must be made for people with children.

Factor in the costs the poker sites incur to reserve hotels for two weeks (a cost that will most likely be passed onto the players, probably in the form of a decreased ratio of seats per player in the sats.) - and the balancing act that is the WSOP ME becomes rather difficult for many of us non-professionals, particularly if booking hotels for an unknown number of nights (anywhere from 2 to 15) is now involved. I assume we might not see many 2006 WSOP ME Stars' packages with hotel included, given the expense of a hotel room at the Mirage or TI for two weeks; perhaps I'm wrong on that count, though.

This post is merely just meant to echo shaniac's point that the logistics of a two-week WSOP ME are difficult to manage for many amateur players.

Having said all that, should I be fortunate enough to qualify again - I'd do my best to work out the logitical issues in any way possible. I don't think I'd jeopardize my career or my marriage, but anything short of that is fair game. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So to answer your question: "I wonder what fraction of people who were able to take 1 week off this year for their ME seat won't be able to take off 10-15 days next year. Any guesses?" - my guess is that, while being a much bigger pain in the ass, it won't deter too many people who would have played had the WSOP ME remained only a week long. But I certainly think it could be a factor.