Inflation adjusted tournament poker

Jack Fate · #1 06-04-2005, 02:11 AM

Forgive me if this is frequently discussed, but why hasn't tournament poker (particularly the WSOP) adjusted buy-ins for inflation over the years?

For example, when Doyle won in 1976 the buy-in was $10,000. $10,000 in 1976 is like $35,000 today.

It seems like the cash games have certainly adjust for inflation, and what we see is that tournaments have become a joke for the high stakes cash game players. For instance, Barry Greenstein can donate his tournament winnings to charity because they are such an insignificant portion of his income compared to cash games. And Phil Ivey has said it's hard for him to focus in tournaments because he knows there is a big side game going on. Also, Daniel Negreaneau is playing heads-up matches for $500,000.

I think the WSOP buy in was not adjusted for inflation over the years because until recently, more entries were welcomed. But surely it is at the point now that more entries are not really wanted (both by the casino and the top players) since we see the need for events being capped.

I think more $25,000 events are needed and I think the WSOP main event should be raised to $50,000. Players with smaller bankrolls would still be able to play in these by winning smaller satellites. The number of players in the event would be reduced to something more reasonable.

Any thoughts on this?

boedeker · #2 06-04-2005, 02:13 AM

only about a year late bro

shaniac · #3 06-04-2005, 05:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Barry Greenstein can donate his tournament winnings to charity because they are such an insignificant portion of his income compared to cash games. And Phil Ivey has said it's hard for him to focus in tournaments because he knows there is a big side game going on. Also, Daniel Negreaneau is playing heads-up matches for $500,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citing two of the most extreme examples of ultra-succesful high stakes cash games players (and in Barry's case, if I'm not mistaken, an independetly wealthy individual to begin with) is not a great way to make your case.

I don't think it would be horrible to bump the WSOP up to 15- or 20K but for most of us, $10,000 is still a lot of money for one tournament.

Shane

PokerProdigy · #4 06-04-2005, 10:52 AM

I've wondered this too.

Tradition I guess, and maybe they're afraid to adjust because then they won't get all the amateurs anymore which is probably one of the biggest reasons people enjoy watching these TV tournaments. For example, people love when they see Joe Blow the plumber/janitor who won a $3 satelite run a bluff past Doyle/Ivey/Greenstein/Any Pro. Because it's entertaining (because you never see some plumber dunk on Michael Jordan) and it makes them feel like they can do it also.

OrangeKing · #5 06-04-2005, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But surely it is at the point now that more entries are not really wanted (both by the casino and the top players) since we see the need for events being capped.

[/ QUOTE ]

The casino, perhaps. The top players? They'd love a 1,000,000 player tournament that paid the top 100,000, if those last 990,000 players were equivalent to the worst players currently in the WSOP. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]