|
|
|
|
#3
07-16-2005, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do ME final tables usually last that long?
Last year took a little over 7 hours, but that included the dinner break, numerous breaks when players busted out, money presentation, etc. 2004 WSOP Final Table
|
|
#4
07-16-2005, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do ME final tables usually last that long?
Anomaly.
Table full of cautious amateurs playing not to lose... Versus pros that would need more action and play to win. If MM had doubled up early... Would have been a completely different game. Personally... I think that this one will be soon forgotten... And demonstrates just how small time pro poker still is. They MUST change the format... Of the World Poker Championship. Now that it's becoming a major sport... Make it more like golf. Players ranked, say, top 200 in the world... Plus exemptions for previous final table appearances... Plus ** lifetime exemptions ** for previous winners... For a total of maybe 300 pros... Would get in. You can still have the 6000 cattle call entrants... But they must play qualifying rounds... Until down to an equal number = 300 Then the tournament starts... With 300 exempted pros plus 300 qualifiers. This would guarantee a Final Table... With at least 5 legitimate pros. Poker will NEVER be taken seriously until they do this... And get rid of comical, drunken meltdowns like Steve Lazar's. Would Tiger Woods throw away $5 million on K9s and QTo? Would they let Steve Lazar into the British Open... Just because he can scarf up $10K between drinking binges? rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#5
07-16-2005, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do ME final tables usually last that long?
How do you rank the "top 200"?
Even in a field of 600, it's certainly not guaranteed you'll get 5 pros for a final table. Somehow the 1500 NL event with over 2000 players had a majority of pro players in the final table, and it didn't need a ranking system for that to happen. When they started the PPT, there were quite a few "pros" who were somehow not included in the original lineup, as well as others who certainly didn't deserve to be there. If you want to limit the field, then have NO satellites and have everyone fork over 10k to get in. Wait, 1st and 2nd this year did buy in for the full 10k, guess that wouldn't work for you either hmmm? Kevin...
|
|
#6
07-16-2005, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do ME final tables usually last that long?
There probably were 5 pros at the WSOP ME final table, just not big name pros. A large portion of the pros and semipros in the world play in this thing, as well as anyone who can qualify on the Internet or has $10K to spare.
For the WPT events, a reasonably large portion of the players are pros who play in a bunch of those events every year, so you see the same faces at the final tables. Even more so with the early WSOP, where only a few masters would risk the money to play in a slow SNG with Moss and Brunson.
|
|
#7
07-16-2005, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Luckiest Coin Flipper Is World Poker Champion
Of all sports/games...
Poker has by far the greatest element of chance. Statistically... And there are 100 stats geeks lurking here right as we speak... The present WSOP formula to decide the World Champion... Simply does not allow the best players to prevail. The luckiest coin flipper wins much of the time... And there is always confusion about who is how good... Who is the best. Why is this exciting? And to whom? Deciding the British Open by playing 2 holes... Would be considered a farce... But a similar formula is entrenched at WSOP. IT WILL CHANGE. If the present format is so precious... Then they should at least double/triple the length of the tournament... To allow the best players to prevail... Not the luckiest coin flippers. rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#8
07-17-2005, 01:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Luckiest Coin Flipper Is World Poker Champion
[ QUOTE ]
Of all sports/games... Poker has by far the greatest element of chance. Statistically... And there are 100 stats geeks lurking here right as we speak... The present WSOP formula to decide the World Champion... Simply does not allow the best players to prevail. The luckiest coin flipper wins much of the time... And there is always confusion about who is how good... Who is the best. Why is this exciting? And to whom? Deciding the British Open by playing 2 holes... Would be considered a farce... But a similar formula is entrenched at WSOP. IT WILL CHANGE. If the present format is so precious... Then they should at least double/triple the length of the tournament... To allow the best players to prevail... Not the luckiest coin flippers. rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] rm+, What did you think of the HU championships earlier this year? This format seems to give much more credence to skill rather than luck. Look who won, Phil Hellmuth. There MUST have been much less luck involved. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] There are already other tournaments out there that give the better players a bigger edge based on talent. I'm not sure these types of tournaments are as marketable, but time will tell. The WSOP is the WSOP. It's run by a casino, not by a major "sporting" organization which is represented by owners and players. It's an open tournament available to anyone with ten grand. That's how it started, and that's how it will continue. I suggested a while back to make the ME a 100k buy in event. But, I don't really see this happening. As it stands, the WSOP is run by a casino. It is no wonder that the event is just a big "gamble". That's what casino's do. Casino's profit from people wanting to gamble. If you want to take the gamble out of the WSOP, take it out of the casino, and run it by some kind of poker entertainment conglomerate. Wait. That's already being done with the WPT. I think you are out of gas critisizing the WSOP.
|
|
#9
07-17-2005, 09:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hachem - World Champion Coin Flipper
Your analysis is good...
Except for the ad hominum at the end. I have no problem with the WSOP... It's a fascinating event... Except that it's been historically viewed.. As deciding the Poker World Champion... AND IT DOES NO SUCH THING. A good analogy is this: 6000 people start on the 1st hole of the British Open... And only the guys who birdie the 1st hole move on (10%)... Then only the guys who birdie the 2nd hole move on (10%). So the British Open would be decided by someone... Who just happens to birdie the first 5-6 holes. Most great players would never win in a lifetime... But most years some sh*t dumb lucky club pro... Would become the "British Open Champion". Of course, this would be considered so totally farcical... That it could never happen... And there would be almost ** no interest ** in such an event. But, statistically, that's what the WSOP is... And people are ** freaking out ** because I proposed some changes... To a format designed for the 70s poker world. I listened to Phil's broadcast for hours... He didn't even know who Andrew Black was... Until someone told him the Ungar river Q story. Poker needs 5-10 bona fide stars... That can cross over into popular culture... And act as ambassadors for the game. The stars are there... But the WSOP just buries them every year... And turns them into commentators. rm+ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#10
07-16-2005, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do ME final tables usually last that long?
[ QUOTE ]
They MUST change the format... Of the World Poker Championship. Now that it's becoming a major sport... Make it more like golf. Players ranked, say, top 200 in the world... [/ QUOTE ] So much for "Anyone Can Win" eh?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
