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.

[sammysusar]

i think the 5600 made it a more exciting event. it still should be pretty good tv because some big name players made it pretty far. they have so many convention rooms at the rio i suppose they could just use two rooms for the main event and maybe the opening event. raising to 15K might be reasonable. Im sure harrah's is quite happy with how it turned out this yr though.

[Quicksilvre]

Easy there, tiger, he just wants to help. No, really.

However, I also agree that this is a bad idea, between all the reasons described above (particularly the Moneymaker and difference-in-ability factors). I don't see why there has to be any major changes to the current structure. Just let more folks in until the Rio (or wherever) bursts at the seams.

I understand that some folks want to see the pros. My idea is this: have a seperate, high buy-in festival somewhere. Have a few $10K tournaments (A couple of NLHE, one PLHE, a LHE, a stud, a stud-8, a PLO with rebuys, a Omaha-8, and a lowball with rebuys), then a few $15K events (stud, limit hold'em and PLO freezeout, and maybe another no-limit event), then a $50K NLH event. That way, the WSOP stays the same, and the pros can have a festival just for them. Call it the New Super Bowl of Poker, and either play it during the WSOP prelims or sometime in the winter.

[shaniac]

After watching your post-WSOP press conference, I was under the impression that you felt the WSOP buyin and field-size was fine and "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Do you still feel that way?

[shaniac]

Not a big deal, but I thought this from the article was weird, too:

[ QUOTE ]
Here’s why: Suppose that Phil Ivey and Doyle Brunson played on day one and they each had $500,000 at the end of the day. I’m guessing there are those who would rather get their $10,000 buy-in back than play on days two or three.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he suggesting that people will fake emergencies in order to generate an excuse to not play the tournament if and when great/world-class players amass chips on Day 1? Of course good players are going to have chips after Day 1A. I don't know any self-respectiing poker player who would find that daunting.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
After watching your post-WSOP press conference, I was under the impression that you felt the WSOP buyin and field-size was fine and "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Do you still feel that way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly I believe that as long as they don't have to start capping the field, they should keep it as much like it is as they can. However, if the numbers were to double again, I believe that they would not be able to hire enough dealers to do it all at once in Vegas. You can always find tables and floorspace, but you can't hire 500 competent poker dealers for a week only. Not when you have to get them to fly/drive in from around the country.

And it's not fair to amateurs to have something ridiculous like 7 day ones, then 3 day twos, and finally a day 3 where you get into the money. You can't expect people to take over a week and a half off of work to play in this thing when they might not even make it into the money after all that time. Plus, with all the dealers tied up in the main event, it's not like the players will be able to play in cash games on their days off.

If the number of players starts to exceed 10,000, then we will have to do something, but until then, I think they can make do with the current format. Next year they are probably going to have 4 day ones, and 2 day twos, but at least that's only one week before you're in the money. ;-)

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[DarthIgnurnt]

I agree that it's a bad idea ... to me, one of the fundamental attractions of the WSOP is that a dope like me can (and did) sit next to seasoned pros ... beating some, outlasting some, etc.

How many times has Sexton himself made a comment like this on a WPT broadcast ... "Imagine Vince ... playing in the US Open with Tiger Woods, or the NBA Finals with Michael Jordan ... let alone beating them."

Second, I think we can all agree that the WSOP attendance, while it will continue to grow, won't continue to grow at nearly this pace. Everything tends to find an equilibrium, and I think 10,000 might be a stretch. (Yes, I realize there were people 20 years ago who never thought it would go above 300 people.)

I do think that a larger buy-in would be a good start. It's logical since there hasn't been a fee increase in 30+ years, and a bigger fee is commensurate with the WSOP Main Event as the "World Championship". It should be a bigger buy-in than the other 50 10K buy-ins each year. This would likely solve most of the issues without becoming overcomplicated like Sexton's solution.

That said ... let's remember who runs this thing. Casinos know how to make money better than anyone. Harrah's will determine whether the logistical issues that will continue to arise outweigh the revenue associated with the event.

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?

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
If the number of players starts to exceed 10,000, then we will have to do something, but until then, I think they can make do with the current format. Next year they are probably going to have 4 day ones, and 2 day twos, but at least that's only one week before you're in the money. ;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think the likelihood is that we'll see numbers significantly larger than 2005 in the next few years? I know it's hard to predict, but somehow I feel the numbers are going to level off around 6,000 players. Anyway, if it goes to 10,000 or more players and the lack of dealers becomes a problem, maybe they can just make it a self-dealt event:-)

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
...somehow I feel the numbers are going to level off around 6,000 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. The TV ratings are starting to slowly go down, and the sellout that everyone anticipated didn't happen. They might get the 6,600 they expected when the 2006 WSOP ME rolls around, but I suspect something above 6,000 but below 6,500.