after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

sexton's new article


most of this article was all right..the complaints were valid..until he came to the idea of limiting the number of entrants in the wsop.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine a much larger venue than the Rio had this year? And staffing an event that could be twice as large next year will be very difficult, if not impossible.

So, what’s the solution to the growth problem? Well, many think it’s time to increase the buy-in of the championship event to $20,000-$25,000. That would eliminate the problem of a massive field. Here’s my suggestion: Set the WSOP up like the U.S. Open golf tournament. Make players qualify regionally to play in the championship event. Bring the top 2,000 players from these qualifying events into Las Vegas for the final event. Allow another 1,000-2,000 to qualify at the Rio. In other words, players would have to earn their way into the championship event.

I would set up regional qualifying in Europe and other places around the world, as well as in the East, North, South, Midwest, Southwest, and West here in the United States; $10,000 buy-in tournaments would be held at the qualifying sites, where players would have to make the money to play in the final event in Las Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]


well mike, no that idea sucks i'm sorry. do the good players get invites then? what happens if phil ivey tries to qualify and doesn't make the main event? he's gonna cap someone's white ass that's what. and maybe it'll be yours mike.
i for the most part have respect for you mike, but this idea is $hit. the only reason these pools have grown and why poker is so popular is that it's accessible to everyone. And that's what makes the game appealing.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

[ QUOTE ]
what happens if phil ivey tries to qualify and doesn't make the main event? he's gonna cap someone's white ass that's what. and maybe it'll be yours mike.

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

Dude...Nuts, you should have thought of this first. Make him play "whose in my mouth." Much better than STFU.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine a much larger venue than the Rio had this year? And staffing an event that could be twice as large next year will be very difficult, if not impossible.

So, what’s the solution to the growth problem? Well, many think it’s time to increase the buy-in of the championship event to $20,000-$25,000. That would eliminate the problem of a massive field. Here’s my suggestion: Set the WSOP up like the U.S. Open golf tournament. Make players qualify regionally to play in the championship event. Bring the top 2,000 players from these qualifying events into Las Vegas for the final event. Allow another 1,000-2,000 to qualify at the Rio. In other words, players would have to earn their way into the championship event.

I would set up regional qualifying in Europe and other places around the world, as well as in the East, North, South, Midwest, Southwest, and West here in the United States; $10,000 buy-in tournaments would be held at the qualifying sites, where players would have to make the money to play in the final event in Las Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only real difference between Sexton's plan and the current structure is that Sexton's early "rounds" would take place outside of Las Vegas, placing less of a burden on the Vegas host. For someone with $10,000 to spend, the odds of qualifying for the final table would still be dependent upon the size of the field (skill level not withstanding), regardless of whether one started playing in Paris or Vegas.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine a much larger venue than the Rio had this year? And staffing an event that could be twice as large next year will be very difficult, if not impossible.

So, what’s the solution to the growth problem? Well, many think it’s time to increase the buy-in of the championship event to $20,000-$25,000. That would eliminate the problem of a massive field. Here’s my suggestion: Set the WSOP up like the U.S. Open golf tournament. Make players qualify regionally to play in the championship event. Bring the top 2,000 players from these qualifying events into Las Vegas for the final event. Allow another 1,000-2,000 to qualify at the Rio. In other words, players would have to earn their way into the championship event.

I would set up regional qualifying in Europe and other places around the world, as well as in the East, North, South, Midwest, Southwest, and West here in the United States; $10,000 buy-in tournaments would be held at the qualifying sites, where players would have to make the money to play in the final event in Las Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only real difference between Sexton's plan and the current structure is that Sexton's early "rounds" would take place outside of Las Vegas, placing less of a burden on the Vegas host. For someone with $10,000 to spend, the odds of qualifying for the final table would still be dependent upon the size of the field (skill level not withstanding), regardless of whether one started playing in Paris or Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but consider what happened when they expanded the NCAA field to "65 teams." Nobody picks that game in their pool, virtually nobody watches it, it's not a real part of the tournament. By the same token, playing in the Paramus, New Jersey qualifier for the WSOP is not the same thing as playing in the WSOP, even if you say "oh, it's the same thing as playing Round 1 at a different site!"

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

I only see two real negatives to Mike's plan.

First, if this is going to be THE WSOP Main Event, then I don't want the qualifying rounds to be super-satellites, I would want them to be events where you play down to the money or some such, and then take your chip count forward. If it's really going to be one big tournament with multiple starting sites, then you have to let people who accumulate chips take advantage of that skill. If you make it work like a regular super-sat, then as others have suggested, then you really haven't made it to the WSOP until you win your way in at the regional qualifier, and that means people who just play in the regional qualifier, but don't make it through, won't feel as if they were part of the Main Event.

Second problem is there are going to be a lot of people who might find the time to take off of work for a regional, but then not be able to make it to LV for the rest of the Main Event. And knowing this, they simply won't enter the regional event. In other words, you will lose some players. Now, obviously, you will gain more than you lose, as other folks will say I can afford to travel from Bern to Paris and play the regional event, as I won't have to fork over the big bucks and take the time for a long overseas trip unless I've already made it into the money. However, I am going to feel disappointed for those who can make it to one event or the other, but not both.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

A way to solve this problem is to give players exceptions, like if they have ever won they don't have to qualify again or have X number of years of exceptions.

No, YOU do
 

[ QUOTE ]
most of this article was all right..the complaints were valid..until he

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, object to a portion that you don't like. Telling him to STFU? That his idea is [censored]? That's childish.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

[ QUOTE ]
A way to solve this problem is to give players exceptions, like if they have ever won they don't have to qualify again or have X number of years of exceptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may work for gold, where the money comes from the sponsors anyway, but when the money comes from my pocket, I want an equal shot to everyone else. I don't want the pros to get an edge or be seeded at different tables or be given an exemption from qualifying.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

Definitely true. I think my personal preference would be to increase the buyin to 25k like the WPT Championship. The satelittes online would still happen, although they'll probally send slightly less players. It's about time the buyin changed, 5600+ player, I believe, makes the tournament too much of a crap shoot, although I think watching the final table will be quite entertaining this year. Personally I prefer watching the Pros over the Amateurs, but that's just me.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

STFU

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A way to solve this problem is to give players exceptions, like if they have ever won they don't have to qualify again or have X number of years of exceptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may work for gold, where the money comes from the sponsors anyway, but when the money comes from my pocket, I want an equal shot to everyone else. I don't want the pros to get an edge or be seeded at different tables or be given an exemption from qualifying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a great idea if it's performance-based. You cashed in last year's main event? You've earned a one year exemption. You've won a bracelet? 5 year exemption. You made the final table of the main event? 3 years. You won the ME? Lifetime exemption.

I think a poker tour that correctly (the PPT seems like a failure so far) modelled itself after the PGA would be a great success.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

the amount of luck in tournament poker makes the idea of qualifying events stupid. tiger woods is going to score better than a lowly amateur 98% of the time. phil ivey is going to outlast a lowly amateur 60-70% of the time. both of these men are the very best at their sport.

it just doesn't make sense for poker.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

I agree this is a bad idea.


So I live in Memphis...so to qualify for the WSOP I'd have to go down to Tunica or New Orleans or Caesar's Indiana to qualify?
Pardon me...but I'll take a pass.
The WSOP-circuit is in Tunica right now and I can't bring myself to head down there because I'm just not that interested.


How many people in the 'real' world can actually swing by AC or Tunica for a few days....and then a month or two later head on over to Vegas for another week or so?

What a pain for people who are not near the qualifying venues.


The reason we have had such an explosion at the WSOP is because of all the internet-qualifiers. So...if I qualify on the internet for the WSOP again does that entitle me to an all expenses paid trip to tunica, Mississippi for the regional event?
Oh goodie!!
Do they then pay for my flight to Las Vegas if I make it that far?


Mike isn't thinking this thing through.
and I very much doubt that the field will double to 11k players or so next year.


What the hell is so wrong with having a cap?
If you only have room for 7k players...then the first 7k players to buy-in or qualify online or via the live satellites get the seats.

I wouldn't have a big problem if they started to gradually raise the buy-in a little bit though (should cut down a little bit on the online-qualifiers).
I think a $12k or even a $15k buy-in wouldn't be too bad.


However...it looked to me like Mike Sexton was getting his way on the PPM cruise because they were raising the buy-in to $14k for this year.
They just recently cancelled that plan and dialed it back to a $10.2k buy-in like before.
So instead of a projected $10-mil prize-pool they are back to a projected $7-mil prize-pool. It just wasn't working out like they had hoped it would I suppose.
They have a bunch of people who have already qualified who are due refunds.
I have two 'tickets' or 'freerolls' for their semifinals which I am due refunds on because the buy-in for those has changed from $535 to $270.


Not sure that raising the price in a similar way for the WSOP would be such a hot idea. I would think that $12k buy-in would be a decent way to test it out without making the change too dramatic.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

They could just put a cap on the number of players. When it sells out, it sells out. First come, first served.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

I don't like Mike's propsal for one main reason.

Chris Moneymaker *probably* would not have made it to the WSOP in Mike's structure.

His win is the single biggest reason for the explosion in poker.

To take away the "moneymaker" factor for every lowlimit online player getting a chance to win the big one is very damaging.

Its like killing the plankton in the ocean. Sure they are small, but without them the rest of the food chain will die.

In this way the terrible online player who feeds the first rung of pokerplayers goes away and that money doesn't make its way up the chain.

It will also take away the "everyman" image poker has, as in "everyman" can become a world champion.

The general public doesn't care (arnd really doesn't want to know) that Greg Raymer was an accomplished poker player before he won the big one. They just want to lump him in with Moneymaker and use that to continue to feed their fantasy.

If the structure of the larger tourney killls the romance and the dream for the fish, they are killing themselves.

Regards,
Woodguy

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

Hi Greg,
[ QUOTE ]
First, if this is going to be THE WSOP Main Event, then I don't want the qualifying rounds to be super-satellites, I would want them to be events where you play down to the money or some such, and then take your chip count forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was a good idea, but how would you handle the unequal skill levels of various regions? Would top players select their own personal fish pond (regional) or would they be required to duke it out in the region in which they live?

Joe

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

X number of sponsorship exemptions? I think we've got to start fattening prize pools with sponsorship money.

Joe

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

[ QUOTE ]
X number of sponsorship exemptions? I think we've got to start fattening prize pools with sponsorship money.

Joe

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be the other thing that needs to happen for my "PGA" style tour idea to work, of course.

By the way, I don't think these ideas are necessarily good for the WSOP, but another tour that worked in this manner would be great. Especially if you had very deep payouts (so everyone who "makes the cut" - say, the top half, being everyone who makes it out of day 1 or 2 - gets something), so that it's worthwhile for good players to play.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

His regional plan sucks as well.
Can you imagine the difference in skill levels between the regions? I would imagine a lot of top players would get shut out because they lost the LV regional, while poorer players could do better in, say, the midwest ones.
Not trying to slam the midwest folks (I'm one) but jeez, this is ridiculous.

Re: No, YOU do
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
most of this article was all right..the complaints were valid..until he

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, object to a portion that you don't like. Telling him to STFU? That his idea is [censored]? That's childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's childish? Don't take the STFU so seriously. Do you masturbate to SEXton, when he goes "BAM!!" on the WPT?
Mike's good for the game, but his idea restricts access to the biggest, best tournament in the world. How are you promoting growth in the game, by implementating limitations in order to decrease the number of people in the WSOP main event?
Isn't that what you WANT? bigger and larger tournaments? It'll show the staying power of poker. More and more "average joes" will get enthralled to play in this tournament. If one of them gets a miracle money finish, they can go back to their friends and talk about, "oh I beat Antonio the Magician in a hand and became the new president of Rocks and Rings." Then his average joe friends will be like..."goddamn, how did Joe money in the WSOP. If he can do it, then I can too. SIGN ME UP!"

This all just trickles down into the growth of the game. If the Las Vegas Host, the Rio, can't handle it, I'm sure there is someone else out there who would gladly host the WSOP.

Also, the idea of the raising the buy-in is a valid suggestion. This is still the same buy-in from the first WSOPs in the 70s. 10g's was a pretty large amount back then. You adjust to inflation, who knows what the buy-in would be today. 100,000? I'm no economist. The very first world series were supposed to be restricted to the best in the world with the largest buy-ins and the juiciest pools.
But, now it seems you can't do that. The game has changed where amateurs can now compete with the pros as long as you have the money.


Lastly, the Mike's suggestion poker should be like the PGA is a good idea. There should be some sort of unifying tour, instead of world poker tour...world series of circuit events, etc. poker may turn out to be like that. Sponsors will juice up the money, big-time pros get invites and amateurs can qualify through satellites if they want.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

i think the 5600 made it a more exciting event. it still should be pretty good tv because some big name players made it pretty far. they have so many convention rooms at the rio i suppose they could just use two rooms for the main event and maybe the opening event. raising to 15K might be reasonable. Im sure harrah's is quite happy with how it turned out this yr though.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

Easy there, tiger, he just wants to help. No, really.

However, I also agree that this is a bad idea, between all the reasons described above (particularly the Moneymaker and difference-in-ability factors). I don't see why there has to be any major changes to the current structure. Just let more folks in until the Rio (or wherever) bursts at the seams.

I understand that some folks want to see the pros. My idea is this: have a seperate, high buy-in festival somewhere. Have a few $10K tournaments (A couple of NLHE, one PLHE, a LHE, a stud, a stud-8, a PLO with rebuys, a Omaha-8, and a lowball with rebuys), then a few $15K events (stud, limit hold'em and PLO freezeout, and maybe another no-limit event), then a $50K NLH event. That way, the WSOP stays the same, and the pros can have a festival just for them. Call it the New Super Bowl of Poker, and either play it during the WSOP prelims or sometime in the winter.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

After watching your post-WSOP press conference, I was under the impression that you felt the WSOP buyin and field-size was fine and "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Do you still feel that way?

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

Not a big deal, but I thought this from the article was weird, too:

[ QUOTE ]
Here’s why: Suppose that Phil Ivey and Doyle Brunson played on day one and they each had $500,000 at the end of the day. I’m guessing there are those who would rather get their $10,000 buy-in back than play on days two or three.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he suggesting that people will fake emergencies in order to generate an excuse to not play the tournament if and when great/world-class players amass chips on Day 1? Of course good players are going to have chips after Day 1A. I don't know any self-respectiing poker player who would find that daunting.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

[ QUOTE ]
After watching your post-WSOP press conference, I was under the impression that you felt the WSOP buyin and field-size was fine and "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Do you still feel that way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly I believe that as long as they don't have to start capping the field, they should keep it as much like it is as they can. However, if the numbers were to double again, I believe that they would not be able to hire enough dealers to do it all at once in Vegas. You can always find tables and floorspace, but you can't hire 500 competent poker dealers for a week only. Not when you have to get them to fly/drive in from around the country.

And it's not fair to amateurs to have something ridiculous like 7 day ones, then 3 day twos, and finally a day 3 where you get into the money. You can't expect people to take over a week and a half off of work to play in this thing when they might not even make it into the money after all that time. Plus, with all the dealers tied up in the main event, it's not like the players will be able to play in cash games on their days off.

If the number of players starts to exceed 10,000, then we will have to do something, but until then, I think they can make do with the current format. Next year they are probably going to have 4 day ones, and 2 day twos, but at least that's only one week before you're in the money. ;-)

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

I agree that it's a bad idea ... to me, one of the fundamental attractions of the WSOP is that a dope like me can (and did) sit next to seasoned pros ... beating some, outlasting some, etc.

How many times has Sexton himself made a comment like this on a WPT broadcast ... "Imagine Vince ... playing in the US Open with Tiger Woods, or the NBA Finals with Michael Jordan ... let alone beating them."

Second, I think we can all agree that the WSOP attendance, while it will continue to grow, won't continue to grow at nearly this pace. Everything tends to find an equilibrium, and I think 10,000 might be a stretch. (Yes, I realize there were people 20 years ago who never thought it would go above 300 people.)

I do think that a larger buy-in would be a good start. It's logical since there hasn't been a fee increase in 30+ years, and a bigger fee is commensurate with the WSOP Main Event as the "World Championship". It should be a bigger buy-in than the other 50 10K buy-ins each year. This would likely solve most of the issues without becoming overcomplicated like Sexton's solution.

That said ... let's remember who runs this thing. Casinos know how to make money better than anyone. Harrah's will determine whether the logistical issues that will continue to arise outweigh the revenue associated with the event.

Re: No, YOU do
 

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Using the Consumer Price Index as a measure of inflation, an item costing $10,000 in 1970 would cost $50,379.13 today. If the buy-in was created to be a significant limiting factor on the number of entrants into the ME, then I don't see how a $25k buy-in violates that spirit.

As a complete amateur/fish that enjoys playing in the online WSOP qualifying events as a way to indulge my poker fantasies, it would make zero difference to me if the buy-in increased that much. What's one more tournament to someone who realizes they have approximately zero chance anyway?

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the number of players starts to exceed 10,000, then we will have to do something, but until then, I think they can make do with the current format. Next year they are probably going to have 4 day ones, and 2 day twos, but at least that's only one week before you're in the money. ;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think the likelihood is that we'll see numbers significantly larger than 2005 in the next few years? I know it's hard to predict, but somehow I feel the numbers are going to level off around 6,000 players. Anyway, if it goes to 10,000 or more players and the lack of dealers becomes a problem, maybe they can just make it a self-dealt event:-)

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

[ QUOTE ]
...somehow I feel the numbers are going to level off around 6,000 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. The TV ratings are starting to slowly go down, and the sellout that everyone anticipated didn't happen. They might get the 6,600 they expected when the 2006 WSOP ME rolls around, but I suspect something above 6,000 but below 6,500.

Re: Mike Sexton Article
 

"How are you promoting growth in the game, by implementating limitations in order to decrease the number of people in the WSOP main event?
Isn't that what you WANT? bigger and larger tournaments? It'll show the staying power of poker. More and more "average joes" will get enthralled to play in this tournament." - CD

I agree completely. By the way, who was the main event winner at Tunica, AC, Foxwoods, etc. this year? How about last year then? The majority of people don't know. Period! But everybody knows who won the 2003 and 2004 WSOP Main Event. Higher buy-in requirements are not going to add more prestige to this tourney.
If Greg is right and say someday 10,000 people play this tourney, that's $100 million in prize money for one tournament. That's a unbelievable figure. And to think that a poker player with some decent skills could cash and play against professionals in this format is, well for me, the best part about playing poker. Everybody can have a dream, but this allows some the chance to live their dream. Don't take this away. You do and people will leave the game.

DaveC

Re: Mike Sexton Article
 

Higher buyins will not increase the prestige, but they might keep the main event from taking 2 weeks to complete.

Re: Mike Sexton Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Higher buyins will not increase the prestige, but they might keep the main event from taking 2 weeks to complete.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, just as long as I can continue to try and qualify through internet satelites at a reasonable price.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

Yes it's a stupid idea. Simply raising the entry to $25K will solve the "problem" of a huge field - if that really is a problem.

Mike is locked into an old-skool mindset where poker belongs to a small cadre of players [who wouldnt have to qualify of course] and all the Internet wannabes are lucky to even be at the same table. Using the US Open golf as an example betrays this as of course only a tiny, tiny number of amateur players actually make it through the qualifying to join the pros.

Sexton:

[ QUOTE ]
Bigger is better only in terms of larger prize pools and more players wanting to participate in the game we love — and compete at the highest level. However, in terms of players being taken care of better today than yesteryear, I wouldn’t consider it an improvement. Give me Jack Binion’s hospitality, comps to the players, and the lavish buffets back in the ’80s any day.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK so there's 100X more players, more money, more media interest but no full steak dinner comps like the few dozen players got in the 80s. Waaaaaaaaaah!!!

I find it difficult to waste any further time on Mike's views if he genuinely feels this is a legitimate analysis of the state of the WSOP.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

I'm too tired to read anyones opinion, I only feel like spouting my own, but isn't he kind of financially tied (ie getting rich) as the competitor of the WSOP.

When I managed a business, we tended not to take too seriously advice that was given to us by people who owned competing businesses that would profit by our failure, because, like, it just didn't make sense.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

So, the idea is basically having a day 1/Day 2 Event run simultaneously in different areas of the world. The people who survive get to go in the ME with their remaining chip stack.

That's it, right?

But what happens when one area gets 5000 people, and the other gets 500?

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

I'd be in favour of raising the buy in. The main event at the wsop should be something people aspire to play in, not something that's easier to play in than the cheaper events.

Re: after mike sexton\'s CP article....he needs to STFU
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine a much larger venue than the Rio had this year? And staffing an event that could be twice as large next year will be very difficult, if not impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the Rio lose money by hosting the World Series this year? I didn't think that was the case, and I certainly don't think they (or the other hotels/resorts in LV) would be upset with more people entering the WSOP in the future, spending more money in Vegas on food, lodging, and recreation, and bringing them even more "free" advertising on major international cable networks. That's my biggest problem with this argument--if you want to say that the huge fields take away from the skill factor required in winning the ME (true) or turn the WSOP into more of a carnival atmosphere than a major championship, fine. But don't base your argument on faulty premises. Believe me, if they have 15,000 entrants in the ME next year, they'll figure out a way to run the tournament.

I also don't think you can really limit the number of slots available in the ME. Part of the allure of the WSOP is that anyone can play in it, even more so now in the days of internet qualifiers. It's something that poker novices and small stakes players the world over dream about, and a huge part of the popularity explosion the game is enjoying. If you cut down on the number of entrants allowed to participate, invariably people are going to be left out and the event loses some of its luster. And besides, it makes for great television (and is great for the game) when a relative unknown scores a big WSOP victory.

I can definitely see raising the entry fee. I can also see cutting down on the number of other events played at the WSOP.