The Table-Stakes NLTH World Championship

[Dan Mezick]

The precursor to the WSOP was an any-game, table stakes format with unlimited buy-ins until one guy was left with all the cash.

That would never make good TV. Right? Of course not. That's why you dont see THAT format on TV.

Lately, I wonder if tournament poker with escalating blinds in really such a great test of poker skill.

Certainly, it is custom made for TV. But not for determining who the best player(s) in poker today really are. There have been huge discussions and threads here on how many well-known tourney winners are getting demolished with regularity in hi-limit cash games.

The consensus is that well-known tournament pros are certainly "not necessarily" the best overall poker players in the world.

So what is the format that accomplishes these two (sometimes opposing) goals?

1. Create some great TV for spectators;
2. Determine the best player in the world as accurately as possible.

I'd like to see an invitational tournament where the very best, most respected players in the world play in this format:

0. Game: NLTH (plays best on TV, and is a great players game)

1. Stakes: 75K buyin total, 25K to start and 50K in reserve to rebuy at any time up to the 75K max.

2. Structure: Cash NLTH with flat $250/$500 blinds and a $100 ante. Key: Non-escalting blinds.

3. Tables: 10 full rings with 100 of the greatest players alive today, in both cash and tourney formats.

4. Qualification: Judging according to a large and very broad field of peers, magazines etc regarding cash game expertise. Judging similiar to Academy Awards-- heavier weighing for top player-votes on who's REALLY who in the REAL top 100. Tourney record to be utilized for ranking tourney skills. Tables collapse as players are eliminated by 75k freezeout.

4. Duration: Tourney is played 5 days a week for 12 hours a day until one winner from the final table remains. No defined clock-time end-point until it's over. "Over" = one winner. Unlimited by clock-time. Driven by big-bet events between players, not by a clock or escalating blinds.

5. TV: Delayed and edited televised depiction of the "best" hands,


6. Internet: Live slight-delay depiction each day on one of the major poker rooms such as Party or Stars. Ability to replay specific hands online as part of the spectator deal.

7. PRIZE MONEY: Winner gets 7.5 million ($75K X 100) which is all the buyins. Top 2..15 split sponsor money in a progressive structure that rewards the top 1/2 of these (players 2,3,4,5,6,7,8) with over 75% of the SPONSOR CASH ADDED MONEY. From the sponsoring poker room, commercial sponsors, etc. Target 5 million total sponsor cash meaning the total prize pool is 7.5MM + 5MM = 12.5 MM with 10 MILLION DOLLARS going to the top 8 with #1 and #2 getting an absolutely huge payday. Make it so 2nd place gets 1/2 of what first gets (7.5MM/2 = 3.75MM). This makes the head-up final clash for the title worth 3.75MM more to the winner.

This format would certainly make it worth the while of the top 100 players in the world. 75K is not alot to put out for a chance at 7.5MM. Backers would be all over these players-- it would not cost them a dime !!


I think NLTH with escalating blinds is actually a decent test of poker skill.... but Cash NLTH does a FAR BETTER JOB of revealing who the best overall player actually is. And this format with NLTH and 100 players across 10 tables will produce dozens and dozens of incredibly entertaining hands that can be serialized for a TV show special spanning say, 4 1-hour episodes.

Table stakes was after all how the first WORLD SERIES OF POKER was played.

I personally would love to see some plays by Doyle Brunson in the Cash NLTH format. That would be highly entertaining-- watching Doyle and Gus Hansen battle for pots in this proposed NLTH cash "semi-freezeout" format.

Can you imagine the "poker feel" that would come across on TV in a Cash NLTH format with players like Doyle, Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, BarryG, Lederer, Sklansky at the same Table-stakes NLTH table?? I'd DEFINITELY buy the DVDs of THAT.

Such an event may come to be regarded as the best poker TV, ever, AND come to be regarded as a better test of poker skill. I go with NL and TH instead of PL and/or some other game(s) or HORSE or HOSE because of the TV factor-- PL is harder for the public to grasp, even with PL being perhaps a better test of overall poker skill. And the public understands NL...format can be explained in under 1 minute.

[ QUOTE ]
In the summer of 1949, as the story goes, inveterate gambler Nicholas "Nick the Greek" Dandolos approached Benny Binion with an unusual request - to challenge the best in a high-stakes poker marathon. Binion agreed to set up a match between Dandolos and the legendary Johnny Moss, with the stipulation that the game would be played in public view.

During the course of the marathon, which lasted five months with breaks only for sleep, the two men played every form of poker imaginable. Moss ultimately won "the biggest game in town" and an estimated $2 million. When the Greek lost his last pot, he arose from his chair, bowed slightly, and uttered the now-famous words, "Mr. Moss, I have to let you go." Dandolos then went upstairs to bed.

[/ QUOTE ]

See:
http://espn.go.com/eoe/wsop/history.html

[Easy E]

One, tournament poker is a different kind of poker than cash games. They really shouldn't be considered the same "game."

Two, what makes you think that any of the top cash game players would want to give away their bread-and-butter by revealing their play? In tournaments now, they are forced to somewhat- however, since that's a different game, it doesn't affect their cash play in a largely detrimental way in my opinion.

Three, other than playing for ego, why would they want to take on the best players when they could make their regular big-game profits from playing a mix? That is, if the "big game" gets much of a mix.

[italianstang]

[ QUOTE ]


Two, what makes you think that any of the top cash game players would want to give away their bread-and-butter by revealing their play? In tournaments now, they are forced to somewhat- however, since that's a different game, it doesn't affect their cash play in a largely detrimental way in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The format proposed could be called nothing other than a tournament. It would be a high buy-in, oddly formattted tournament, but it would still be a tournament. Therefore you could argue that they would still be using "tournament poker skill" and not "cash game poker skill" in the context of revealing their play.

I think the format idea is grea though, a little complicated but great.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Two, what makes you think that any of the top cash game players would want to give away their bread-and-butter by revealing their play? In tournaments now, they are forced to somewhat- however, since that's a different game, it doesn't affect their cash play in a largely detrimental way in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The format proposed could be called nothing other than a tournament. It would be a high buy-in, oddly formattted tournament, but it would still be a tournament. Therefore you could argue that they would still be using "tournament poker skill" and not "cash game poker skill" in the context of revealing their play.

I think the format idea is grea though, a little complicated but great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you could call it basketball, thus suggesting that only their "basketball skill" would be involved. But I think some of the players might see through it.

[SossMan]

Do you know how long it could take once it gets down to heads up with an average stack of 7500 big blinds?

[Psycho21]

I stopped reading after you said "Lately, I wonder if tournament poker with escalating blinds in really such a great test of poker skill."
It took you this long to realize this.
In addition to this, what makes you think this would determine "the best player in the world." Playing one extended session of NL wouldnt really do it.
I also dont understand why the op would grow a big rubbery one from watching Doyle Brunson play.
These big name guys hype themselves up so much everyone buys into their b.s. I have begun to wonder they have bought it as well.

[Dan Mezick]

I think that may be be best part-- at that point it's all player-vs-player psychology at its finest.

Imagine Doyle aginst Phil Ivey in this head-up situation.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine Doyle aginst Phil Ivey in this head-up situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see about two bajillion years of play before someone wins.