good or bad?

[lmcclean]

would you consider the recent expansion of players in major poker tournament's as a good orbad thing for the game?

guess as I started things I'll weigh in on this first.
I personally consider it a bad thing. It seems to me that the larger fields of players are causeing more wattered down tournaments and final tables. The WSOP of poker has been shown nightly on tv for the last week(TSN for any interested canadians with out a tv guide). After watching the final table of the pot limit holdem event I have to admit I was almost disgusted. Their was the 22 year old player, makeing poor play after poor play out drawing seasoned pros, Phil H. got out drawning by this guy on 3 and 4 outers everytime. I sat through an hour of the garbage only to see this guy pretty much blindly push forward catching miracle cards. After watching the whole final table I sat back in awe and tried to rember one decent play the 'great young champion' made and nothing could come to mind. Not a good trap, bluff, or anything resembling an expert play.
I understand that luck is an aspect of the game, and that ocasionally a poor player will come out on top. However between this display and watching the tour for most of the season I've found more and more watered down final tables.
Sure more tourists sitting down at tables is a great thought for any serious player. Seems though that as you watch the pros put together their best game and get hammerd by some rookie with one card left in the deck constantly, the pros are starting to get tired of it. My fear is that in 3 or 4 years poker will have become to popular for it's self and all the greats will fall back in smaller tourny's and back room games. And this isn't good for any fan of the game.

[The4thFilm]

He posts on this forum so I suggest you shut the [censored] up.

[lmcclean]

don't care where he posts, I"m just useing that as the most recent example of what I've seen latley.

[daryn]

why should that excuse him from poor play?

[The4thFilm]

He played very well, his opponent and Norman Chad said he did at least. And I would be very proud of anyone who won a tournament without 1 suckout.

[daryn]

yeah, i'm not really trying to say his play was poor. i'm not big on criticizing people's play from TV, for obvious reasons.

i'm just saying, the fact that he posts here has nothing to do with another guy saying he thinks the guy played poorly.

[Bluffstar]

Good.

More people playing poker, the more popular the game will be, the greater players we will see, the bigger the prizes will be - and more places in the world the game will be both legal and respected.

I do however agree that 2500+ entries for wsop the final event, it has become too big. Why? Mainly because some online qualifiers, will easily sacrifice themselves for busting good players out.

I would rather see the entry beeing raised to 25K$ or more, it will still be the best in the world playing there, because of all the qualifiers.

This is no offense to the wsop final table players, which
I all find to be VERY worthy for the final table.

THE FUTURE IS GOOD!
Which good things will happen? Don't worry if somebody got lucky, things will adjust to it.

IN THE FUTURE....
- There will be fewer but better players at the wsop.
- There will also be more players trying to qualify for it.
- There will come more standardized tournaments worldwide. This includes leagues, annual tournaments etc.
- Poker will be legal, respected and widespread all over the world.
- Poker will be just as respected and "fine" as chess and other intelligence games, maybe even as golf and maybe even at the olympic games.
- Pot-limit will eventually win over no-limit as being "the cadillac of poker".
- Good players and pro are required to be mastering many games, and not only a few, as there will be held pokergames like decathlon or ironman.

[Trainwreck]

Good thing, many pros make their living on side cash games.

There are now more daily tournaments available B&M and of course non-stop on the internet if you join just a few sites.

SO it's a good thing, because if nothing else, <font color="red"> </font> MORE OPTIONS<font color="black"> </font> now.

I am sure everyone else covered the rest.

&gt;TW&lt;