When will we have next repeat WSOP winner?

[betgo]

It's not the bad players in themselves, but the bad players attract average professionals and strong amateurs who wouldn't have played when most of the field was world class players. Guys like Raymer, Moneymaker, Varkonyi (I know Raymer > Moneymaker > Varkonyi), Arieh, Williams, and Krux probably wouldn't have played when the field was stronger. When you put several hundred fairly strong players like this is a field with maybe 50 established world class players, it is more likely one of the fairly strong players will win, because there are so many more of them.

[Trainwreck]

I think raising the BUY-IN is not that big of help, the online sites/casinos will just adjust the sats....

I first thought that would work too, and after further thought ^

WPT's new pro only tour might be the solution: previous tournament finishes requirement

The pros could wreck havoc on the WSOP by ALL boycotting it...
<chances of this: I put at .000000001%>

My .01 on the subject...

Repeat winner wise, I think we will have a former winner take it down by 2014.

>TW<

[DimensionPresident]

I never knew the specifics, but does the WSOP give a certain number of these spots out for promotion, or do the online card rooms simply pay full price for an entry?

If it's the former, why can't the WSOP just say there can be no online sat winners?

[CrisBrown]

Hi betgo,

An interesting (perhaps) corollary question: when will the next (true) "Tiger Woods" figure appear in poker, and is it even possible?

I'm not talking about Phil Ivey (who is commonly referred to as the Tiger Woods of poker). I'm talking about a player who will raise the bar of performance in such a way that: (a) he'll win a bunch of tournaments at first; and, (b) everyone else will be forced to adjust their games to compete.

In the 1980s and early 90s, commentators were saying there would never be another Hogan-Palmer-Nicklaus sort of dominant player, because the fields were bigger and the average skill level in the field had risen. Greg Norman and a handful of others won often, but on any given week, in the PGA Tour, just about any of the players could win.

Then along came Tiger Woods. He not only had the mechanics but also the athleticism to raise the bar for golf. He hit the ball farther, straighter, and more accurately than just about anyone else on tour, and for several years all of the other pros were having to play catch-up. They had to go to the weight room, develop their athleticism, and fit it into their overall games in order to compete. Now many of them have, and while Tiger is still very good, he's not going to win as often as he did, simply because the rest of the field has caught up and can compete again.

Is it possible for a "Tiger Woods" like figure to emerge in poker? What additional skills/abilities -- over and above those the top tournament pros already typically possess -- would such a player need in order to dominate and force everyone else to adjust their games in order to compete? Or is the nature of poker so inherently different from golf that this is not possible?

Cris

[ismisus]

Raising of the buy-in will lower the amount of entries. Thus lowering variance. Thus inscreasing the chance of a repeating champion.

Its all simple, no one wonder even tools like Paul Phillips win so much money in Poker over people like you.

[The4thFilm]

Probably the field/2

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
Raising of the buy-in will lower the amount of entries. Thus lowering variance. Thus inscreasing the chance of a repeating champion.

Its all simple, no one wonder even tools like Paul Phillips win so much money in Poker over people like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

What f_cking drugs are you on, buddy? My question was does the WSOP give away a certain number of entries to online casinos in exchange for the promotion they will receive from those online casinos, or do the online casinos pay full price for the entries they give away?

I am fully aware of the fact that a smaller field will increase the chance of a repeat champ. Douche.

[donny5k]

The point is it will lower the number of entries a negligible amount. In fact the rate of growth in number of entries due to online qualifying most certainly outweighs any change resulting from increasing the buyin.

[ismisus]

The basic rule of economics is this. As price increases, demand decreases. So eventually, the increase of the buy-in will lower the amount of entries.

I would argue that growth of online qualifiers is negligible. Since the buy-in can be raised to an infinite amount, while the amount of qualifers cannot.

[Tyler]

Phil hellmuth will win next year kakaka [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]