The next WSOP Development

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
What if they made the WSOP like the PGA Tour? Where you either had to get in by qualifying at specific tourneys (maybe there are like 20 around the country at 10K buy-ins that the top 10 get freerolls to the WSOP) and there are exemptions if you reach a WPT final table, or similiar type of thing. Make the prize pool huge but the entry limited. That would be ideal for the pros and generate enormous prestige just to be in the thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I think part of the appeal of the WSOP is that anyone with 10K and the balls can sit next to the pros. The only problem is that 10K does not mean as much as it used to.

[autobet]

Maybe the main event will have a $25,000 buy in to thin out the field a little.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the main event will have a $25,000 buy in to thin out the field a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrah's doesn't want to thin the field. They want the largest fields possible to generate the most publicity and excitement.

Harrah's bought the WSOP to be their signature event in an industry that really doesn't have many signature events. They're not going to start changing the main event to decrease the # of participants.

[odellthurman]

I think arguing for smaller fields made up of only "pros" is similar to arguing that 15/30 on Party Poker is easier than 2/4 because the players respond more predictably to your play.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
I think arguing for smaller fields made up of only "pros" is similar to arguing that 15/30 on Party Poker is easier than 2/4 because the players respond more predictably to your play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is saying that. Some people want smaller fields to decrease the variance and maintain the prestige of the event.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think arguing for smaller fields made up of only "pros" is similar to arguing that 15/30 on Party Poker is easier than 2/4 because the players respond more predictably to your play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is saying that. Some people want smaller fields to decrease the variance and maintain the prestige of the event.

[/ QUOTE ]

The event is far more prestigous today than it has ever been. Larger fields have only increased the prestige.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the main event will have a $25,000 buy in to thin out the field a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrah's doesn't want to thin the field. They want the largest fields possible to generate the most publicity and excitement.

Harrah's bought the WSOP to be their signature event in an industry that really doesn't have many signature events. They're not going to start changing the main event to decrease the # of participants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor should they. Raising the buy is a classic "solution in search of a problem." What, exactly, is wrong with an $8 Million prize pool event in which a substantial share of the players are total fish?

[Jinx230]

My original thinking was not to change the MAIN Event to $50K, but to have a $50K event. And if advertised properly on ESPN, I think it would generate alot more viewers b/c people would be more excited to see alot of the big names that they know. Another reason? Enough people will actually pay the money.

Obviously the Main Event buy-in may be increased in future years, but I think a higher buy-in event would be an unbelievable draw, and may take on the stigma of a bracelet that "really matters" - at least to the pros. Every pro I have heard said that even if they win the main event, it will be b/c of luck - even the pros know that surviving those kind of numbers is nearly impossible.

I mean, it would be cool to see, and I think the demand is there. I mean, we're talking about 1 Event really.

[Ken_AA]

The Tournament of Champions will become the elite Tournament to win. I believe entries will be capped at 100.

Ken

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
The Tournament of Champions will become the elite Tournament to win.

[/ QUOTE ]



Where do you guys come up with this stuff?