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

[CDSNUTSINYAMOUTH]

sexton's new article


most of this article was all right..the complaints were valid..until he came to the idea of limiting the number of entrants in the wsop.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine a much larger venue than the Rio had this year? And staffing an event that could be twice as large next year will be very difficult, if not impossible.

So, what’s the solution to the growth problem? Well, many think it’s time to increase the buy-in of the championship event to $20,000-$25,000. That would eliminate the problem of a massive field. Here’s my suggestion: Set the WSOP up like the U.S. Open golf tournament. Make players qualify regionally to play in the championship event. Bring the top 2,000 players from these qualifying events into Las Vegas for the final event. Allow another 1,000-2,000 to qualify at the Rio. In other words, players would have to earn their way into the championship event.

I would set up regional qualifying in Europe and other places around the world, as well as in the East, North, South, Midwest, Southwest, and West here in the United States; $10,000 buy-in tournaments would be held at the qualifying sites, where players would have to make the money to play in the final event in Las Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]


well mike, no that idea sucks i'm sorry. do the good players get invites then? what happens if phil ivey tries to qualify and doesn't make the main event? he's gonna cap someone's white ass that's what. and maybe it'll be yours mike.
i for the most part have respect for you mike, but this idea is $hit. the only reason these pools have grown and why poker is so popular is that it's accessible to everyone. And that's what makes the game appealing.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
what happens if phil ivey tries to qualify and doesn't make the main event? he's gonna cap someone's white ass that's what. and maybe it'll be yours mike.

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao

[oreogod]

Dude...Nuts, you should have thought of this first. Make him play "whose in my mouth." Much better than STFU.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine a much larger venue than the Rio had this year? And staffing an event that could be twice as large next year will be very difficult, if not impossible.

So, what’s the solution to the growth problem? Well, many think it’s time to increase the buy-in of the championship event to $20,000-$25,000. That would eliminate the problem of a massive field. Here’s my suggestion: Set the WSOP up like the U.S. Open golf tournament. Make players qualify regionally to play in the championship event. Bring the top 2,000 players from these qualifying events into Las Vegas for the final event. Allow another 1,000-2,000 to qualify at the Rio. In other words, players would have to earn their way into the championship event.

I would set up regional qualifying in Europe and other places around the world, as well as in the East, North, South, Midwest, Southwest, and West here in the United States; $10,000 buy-in tournaments would be held at the qualifying sites, where players would have to make the money to play in the final event in Las Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only real difference between Sexton's plan and the current structure is that Sexton's early "rounds" would take place outside of Las Vegas, placing less of a burden on the Vegas host. For someone with $10,000 to spend, the odds of qualifying for the final table would still be dependent upon the size of the field (skill level not withstanding), regardless of whether one started playing in Paris or Vegas.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine a much larger venue than the Rio had this year? And staffing an event that could be twice as large next year will be very difficult, if not impossible.

So, what’s the solution to the growth problem? Well, many think it’s time to increase the buy-in of the championship event to $20,000-$25,000. That would eliminate the problem of a massive field. Here’s my suggestion: Set the WSOP up like the U.S. Open golf tournament. Make players qualify regionally to play in the championship event. Bring the top 2,000 players from these qualifying events into Las Vegas for the final event. Allow another 1,000-2,000 to qualify at the Rio. In other words, players would have to earn their way into the championship event.

I would set up regional qualifying in Europe and other places around the world, as well as in the East, North, South, Midwest, Southwest, and West here in the United States; $10,000 buy-in tournaments would be held at the qualifying sites, where players would have to make the money to play in the final event in Las Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only real difference between Sexton's plan and the current structure is that Sexton's early "rounds" would take place outside of Las Vegas, placing less of a burden on the Vegas host. For someone with $10,000 to spend, the odds of qualifying for the final table would still be dependent upon the size of the field (skill level not withstanding), regardless of whether one started playing in Paris or Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but consider what happened when they expanded the NCAA field to "65 teams." Nobody picks that game in their pool, virtually nobody watches it, it's not a real part of the tournament. By the same token, playing in the Paramus, New Jersey qualifier for the WSOP is not the same thing as playing in the WSOP, even if you say "oh, it's the same thing as playing Round 1 at a different site!"

[Greg (FossilMan)]

I only see two real negatives to Mike's plan.

First, if this is going to be THE WSOP Main Event, then I don't want the qualifying rounds to be super-satellites, I would want them to be events where you play down to the money or some such, and then take your chip count forward. If it's really going to be one big tournament with multiple starting sites, then you have to let people who accumulate chips take advantage of that skill. If you make it work like a regular super-sat, then as others have suggested, then you really haven't made it to the WSOP until you win your way in at the regional qualifier, and that means people who just play in the regional qualifier, but don't make it through, won't feel as if they were part of the Main Event.

Second problem is there are going to be a lot of people who might find the time to take off of work for a regional, but then not be able to make it to LV for the rest of the Main Event. And knowing this, they simply won't enter the regional event. In other words, you will lose some players. Now, obviously, you will gain more than you lose, as other folks will say I can afford to travel from Bern to Paris and play the regional event, as I won't have to fork over the big bucks and take the time for a long overseas trip unless I've already made it into the money. However, I am going to feel disappointed for those who can make it to one event or the other, but not both.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[jaybee_70]

Hi Greg,
[ QUOTE ]
First, if this is going to be THE WSOP Main Event, then I don't want the qualifying rounds to be super-satellites, I would want them to be events where you play down to the money or some such, and then take your chip count forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was a good idea, but how would you handle the unequal skill levels of various regions? Would top players select their own personal fish pond (regional) or would they be required to duke it out in the region in which they live?

Joe

[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?

[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.