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

[CDSNUTSINYAMOUTH]

[ 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.

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?

[DDC67]

"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

[fnurt]

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

[DDC67]

[ 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.

[MonkeeMan]

STFU

[billyjex]

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.

[MicroBob]

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.

[autobet]

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

[woodguy]

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