Making Tournaments Better Tests Of Skill

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

The survival of ring games is due to the fact that the less skilled players frequently win. The same is true for tournaments. If most tournaments were won by the most skilled players, they would quickly die off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your first point, ring games need a great deal of chance to keep weaker players playing. But I'm not so sure about your second, if I wasn't clear I'm not talking about small tournaments, just top tournaments. Big events like the WSOP and WPT are going to get a lot of entries either way. And audiences want recognizable heroes. We want to increase audience size, don't we?

Would anyone care about the Tour De France if Lance Armstrong got knocked out the first day three years in a row and every year it was won by someone who just started cycling a month ago? We want to establish that poker involves skill, and having repeat winners and final table participants helps establish that.

[Coleman]

If you take out the art and leave the science, the machines have already won!

[capone0]

Other than the WSOP Main Event, which touraments fit your bill. Most of the WPT titles are held by big time poker players. Most final tables for WPT events are filled by big time poker players. You want to fix the problem, make the main event cost 30K to get in. That removes much of the field. Sites would send 1/3rd less entrants or maybe even less.

The tournament this year:

Erik Seidel
Arieh
Cloutier
Greenstein
Todd Brunson
Chan
Ivey
Brunson
Chiu

I know that's not domination but in the short list of pros, they won 9 events out of the 37.

In the WPT, only a couple of no-namers won titles this year. Yes it's less than years past but there are more amatuers then in years past. Pros don't need help, and this system is pretty silly.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, bad idea or good?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad. Who will determine what the best hand is? You mean the hand that would win right at that moment? What if the hand that is currently behind has so many outs he's a favorite to win?


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I chose the hand that is currently ahead is to avoid forcing dealers to have access to twodimes.net to determine who has the biggest pot equity [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But good point, I'm not really rewarding the best player if he's actually currently behind but with 15+ outs to win.

So here's PROPOSAL 2, an updated proposal that I think will have even less negative tournament impact, but will still promote more skill.

Allow players to "Conduct Business" when all in. If both players agree, they can run it twice. Just like in NL ring games. It's just another option that players have and can reduce volatility for the better players, with less impact on the overall play.

I'm sure this must have been proposed before, anyone know why it's not done?

[TeeEffDee]

How about rock paper scissors?

[Rock27]

The WSOP ME is still very much a skill event - however, with 5000+ entrants you are going to see more "unknowns." If you look back to when Doyle won back to back, I believe there were about 20 entrants each year. When Chan won back to back, I think it was about 150-200 entrants. You do the math.

Your option for playing multiple hands just wouldn't work. Carrying that option to it's logical conclusion, why not just turn over your pocket cards and declare a winner based on probability? I kind of like seeing the "robot system" players take bad beats...would much rather watch a Gus Hansen or Stu Ungar play anytime.

Rock27 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Hal 2000]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely luck is integral part of what makes poker great, so why do I care? I'd like to see more "name pros" at final tables, while still providing amateurs enough chances that some make it to the final tables as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would submit that there are plenty of amateurs whose game is right up to the level of many pros, you just don't know about them because they can't afford to enter every prestigious event and play against those pros.

[betgo]

How many chess tournaments have a $56M prize pool?

[sirdeej2]

Instead of making the tournament take even longer than it does right now....how about the ME changes to pot limit??? That would make it a truer test of skill with some actual post flop play. Sorry if this was mentioned...didnt read.

[ohkanada]

Terrible option.

As Greg said in his interview yesterday make the tourney 6 months long and the best player might win!