WSOP needs Re-vamping

[AustinDoug]

Why do you feel the winner of a particular tournament would automatically qualify as the top player in the world?

Why do you care who wins the WSOP?

Why shouldn't "name pros" have to beat no name players to win the tournament?

[TexArcher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's the most democratic golf tournament in the country. Anyone who qualifies can play and anyone who plays can win.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, and if you've qualified you are a very, very good player. it's not like they just let in every weekend hack that signs up - it's extremely difficult to make.

the reason the open has appeal is because it's democractic, yes. but it's not the complete sh*t show that the wsop is - the worst player in the field will still be scary good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agreed, qualifying for the US Open is a million times harder than someone catching two or three nights of good cards in sattelites. Now, golf doesn't have the variance that poker does, fair enough, but the WSOP is in serious jeopardy of making a mockery of itself for the sake of corporate sponsorship...

I can hear it now, Lon's voice-over, "Welcome to the 2015 World Series of Poker, we've got a record 46,215 entrants this year"...

[SoftcoreRevolt]

Because people in their minds have turned the WSOP into something it isn't, a prestigious event that isn't just a money making enterprise.

[Glenn]

Poker is not about TV entertainment value. It's about money. I'm sorry your show is sad because your degenerate idols are losing to people you don't know. Fortunately you can watch great shows like The Apprentice, Martha Stewart instead.

[Dave Mac]

the next 10 people who suggest limiting the wsop field or raising the buy in should be ban.
dave

[Bosox]

So ban me. After 5,000 entrants, making it a 15k buyin might be in order. There's a difference between having an inclusive and accessible tournament and getting rediculous. Also, back when it started, 10,000 dollars really meant something. Think about it, raising the buyin is just like adjusting for inflation.

[Rasputin]

What makes people think the WSOP is supposed to pit the best against the best?

That's in your own mind.

What is happening is that the WSOP is becoming the monster field tournament. If you want the best against the best, play in the WPT champsionship with it's $25,000 buyin. Only 452 entered and clearly Tuan Le is the best of the best.

But the bottom line is this. It's not your tournament. If you don't like it, don't play.

[EStreet20]

[ QUOTE ]
Sattelites could be allowed to award seats to all of the other events, just not the main event. The field is getting ridiculous, there was a girl who won her seat on some Japanese game show and didn't even know how to play hold'em, that's just retarded.


[/ QUOTE ]

The game show thing is really stupid. Satellites are not. the whole idea behind a satellite is that all players entering put their money toward the higher tourney's buy-in. Thus, these people who win enough satellites to get to the main event are essentially winning ten thousand dollars to buy in with. There is no flaw in that whatsoever. To break it down, player A enter a SnG with a 110 +10 buyin. If he wins he gets a ticket to the 1,000 +100 buyin WSOP satellite SnG. The 110 from the first SnG times 10 players equals the 1100 for the next satellite. Thus he buys in for 1100, or 1000+100 and if he wins he gets 10 grand to enter the WSOP. In the end all players involved in that second satellite are chipping in 10,000 somewhere. It's no different than you and nine of your friends each putting up a grand for one of you to enter. I'm sure you'd see no problem there.
Obviously that was a very simple example but in the end the players are paying for the entry, except in freeroll cases where the site does. Either way the entry money is put up and goes into the prize pool at the WSOP.

Another thing we have to remember is that since the first year of the WSOP, where Johnny Moss was named champion by vote, no one has ever said the winner of the WSOP or of any tourney for that matter was clearly the best player in the world. It's simply a tourney designed for people to make money. Has it become harder for the big names to make money in the Main Event?? Sure it has. But they've always said they can make more in the side games anyway, so let them.

Good luck,
Matt

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's the most democratic golf tournament in the country. Anyone who qualifies can play and anyone who plays can win.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, and if you've qualified you are a very, very good player. it's not like they just let in every weekend hack that signs up - it's extremely difficult to make.

the reason the open has appeal is because it's democractic, yes. but it's not the complete sh*t show that the wsop is - the worst player in the field will still be scary good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agreed, qualifying for the US Open is a million times harder than someone catching two or three nights of good cards in sattelites. Now, golf doesn't have the variance that poker does, fair enough, but the WSOP is in serious jeopardy of making a mockery of itself for the sake of corporate sponsorship...

I can hear it now, Lon's voice-over, "Welcome to the 2015 World Series of Poker, we've got a record 46,215 entrants this year"...





[/ QUOTE ]

That would be so cool.

The reason it won't however, is that every "slob" who enters invisions himself winning. Most people can take a week or two off of work, most people couldn't take thirty days off from work.

My prediction, entries will level off eventually somewhere in the 12,000-15,000 range. I predict 8300 entrants next year.

--Zetack

I don't get why you have a problem with the format.

It's not like tournaments are going to be run for long enough to identify small differences in skill over the variance in cards. When people do computer poker testing or competition, they're playing tens and hunderds of thousands of hands, if not more. If you have players putting in 100 hands an hour, that's still 100 s hours of play per match.

Another problem with NLHE as a competition format is that players can make tactical descisions that drastically reduce the effect of skill in the game -- for example, always raising all-in.

Regardless, if the better players are really better than the no-names, then either their superiority in skill will bring them victory consistently, or the format does not provide for sufficient influence from skill, and it's more of a lottery. In either case, allowing no-names in the game is reasonable.