Bluffing in the WSOP

[$DEADSEXE$]

Instead of changing any event the WSOP could simply add a event with a higher buy-in...$20,000,30,000 etc. WSOP Tourney of Champions ala WPT.
All the winners in the prior WSOP events would get a free buy-in along with their bracelet.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
The most amateurs the better odds that Hellmuth whines, so they're crucial.

[/ QUOTE ]


you spelled "wins" wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a larger field increase his chances of winning? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


i dunno, it was a joke. anyway, it increases his EV for sure.

[bomblade]

What hoops am I asking anyone to jump through? I don't understand. What should Hellmouth do that other's do? Play in satellites? Why? He can afford the buy-in. I do agree that it'd be nice if they came up with a tournament of champions deal. That if they turned poker more into a "league". I mean, it would only be the tournament circuit.

[holman3rd]

[ QUOTE ]
I really disagree with the idea of forcing players to jump through eighteen hoops just to get a shot at playing against the "names". II'm not sure if that's exactly what you're getting at, but if they're so damn good, they can play against anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and the PGA should adopt this stance too. I'd pay $10,000 in a heartbeat to play a round in the US Open with Tiger Woods. I realize my handicap is about 18, but if Tiger's so good, he can play against anyone, including me, right? (tongue firmly in cheek)

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, and the PGA should adopt this stance too. I'd pay $10,000 in a heartbeat to play a round in the US Open with Tiger Woods. I realize my handicap is about 18, but if Tiger's so good, he can play against anyone, including me, right? (tongue firmly in cheek)

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe some of the pros would like everyone to believe that this is an accurate analogy - the truth is, it's not even remotely close. Poker is an art, but it's not rocket science, and it's obviously not a physical sport. The difference between Tiger Woods and a good Joe Amateur is like the Grand Canyon; the difference between Daniel Negreanu and a good Joe Amateur is like a ditch in your yard by comparison. And someone is filling up the ditch with dirt as we speak.

[ohgeetee]

raising the buyin would work too. I would wager that its going to stick at 10k for 1 more year, to see what the growth surge is next year. in 02, they had like 500ish players, 03 had 800, then 04 had 2500. if it doubles or triples expect it to hit 25k or more the year after next, but they might be pushing saturation at 2500 with the 10k buyin.

They will try to guesstimate how many of their expected number they would lose by raising the buyin to 25k, nad if that number doesnt lower their bottom line, the buyin will get raised. I don't think making it a 25k buyin will affect internet satellites at all in regards to how many spots are offered that way. The buyin for those internet supers may get raised a bit, but not enough to stop them from still hitting max capacity.

[West]

As far as I can tell, you didn't specifically say anything about making amateurs jump through hoops - [ QUOTE ]
I hope by next year, at the WSOP, we either don't have so many amateurs, or the best adjust their game to fit the new game.

[/ QUOTE ] that's all. Ohgeetee hinted at restricting how you get in to the WSOP, without being super specific. I think the best pros will definitely adjust their game to deal with the amateurs they face, but they are also going to be facing a growing number of amateurs who will become top players themselves, IMHO. All I'm saying is, keep it a fully open tournament - no restrictions like, so and so can buy directly in because he has a bracelet, but John Doe can't.

[holman3rd]

I actually agree with you that amateurs should not have to jump through hoops to play with poker "pros". I was just throwing in a bit of sarcasm for humor...then again, I'm not really that funny.

Seriously, though, this is poker, for crying out loud, so I can never see it being treated like real sports. I really don't understand why pros whine about amateurs anyway. If the amateurs really do suck, the why wouldn't pros welcome their so-called dead-money into tournaments. Really, would a pro rather play a ring game against 9 other world champs, or 9 other world chumps?

Whah whah whah...so the game has changed b/c of the Internet and an influx of amateur players. Adjust and move on. Better yet, rewrite "the book" and make a killing that way.

[West]

Oh, sorry, heh.

Exactly. I think that on balance, the pros do have to love playing against a large amount of amateurs in the big events. They just have to adjust to their opposition at any given time - isn't that what poker is all about? If Negreanu plays Q2s and hits a flop big, he's a genius, but if Joe Nobody does it, he's a mine in a minefield that Hellmuth stepped on. Hey, this just in, there's luck in the game - guys like the guy that won that PLO event can in fact win - people need to just accept that that is the case. It's one of the reasons the game is so popular.

[jwvdcw]

Before we try to solve these 'problems', can someone tell me why having a large field and many amatuers is such a bad thing?