What about a 2+2 "league" for WSOP 2006 seats?

[Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
Dave D, I don't think your idea is bad at all, but my only concern would be getting enough 2+2 people to play $100 events each week. If we get 30 2+2er's and 400 other people, what's really the point?

You can find sats to the WSOP all over the place. I was just thinking a "league" or leaderboard type thing for 2+2er's only would be really cool. Almost like having our own little tour, with WSOP seats on the line at the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a fair amount of 2+2ers wouldn't bother with the leaderboard at the end of the year because they've already qualified in other ways. Maybe I'm giving us too much credit tho [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] It's not a bad idea to just keep track of who won. Reasons to hold our own tourney, even if its largely (or even mostly) not 2+2ers and/or why our tourney is different than other tourneys out there:

1. Don't give out cash, only seats. Ie no winning twice, and keep people out who have won already. I think we'd probably write that somewhere so everyone sees it. That means *at the least* you can't win in this tournament twice . I suppose people who haven't won our tourney would play it, and still play other tourneys, but at the least we'd have mostly people who haven't won a seat yet. I don't know if it's possible to literally ban people who have already won, but at the least we could just not pay them, and pay the next person instead. I think a fair amount of people who play WSOP stuff are doing it just hoping for a cash prize. $12k is a pretty good prize, especially when you can get it for 8th place or whatever. This cuts those people out.

2. I was saying in my original post. Keep the buy in relativly low while still having a good payout. $100 is (I think?) 40% of what party and all them usually make the buy in if I remember. Determining our own payout/tourney structure is important.

3. Knowing much of the field is 2+2ers. Knowing they're mostly (?) good players. Other tourneys don't really have this.


I just think making a weekly tourney that only costs $100 to enter but is very feasable to do well in has an appeal in itself. The other tourneys cost at least twice as much, and have bigger fields.