Making Tournaments Better Tests Of Skill

This is my first post, how exciting!

I think the OP proposes a bad idea, perhaps with good intention. I think the assumption that "TV pros" should fill many seats at the WSOP ME final table is faulty. First, the simple fact that there are only 100-200 top pros means it is statistically likely that 2 or so will even crack the top 50. If you figure they are more skilled, I think you can up that but not to the point where you will see 20 or so familiar faces in the last 50. Secondly, I think the general publics fascination with poker has a lot to do with the "anyone can win" philospophy. If you tweak the system in hopes of favoring who you think is the better player would likely hurt the image of poker and possibly turn would-be newbies away.

I think there are other easier ways to make skill a larger factor. Using Greg Raymer et al. calculations that it would take a 6 month tournament to have skill win out over luck, why not have players propose things like longer levels, larger amount of starting chips with respect to the big blind, 30-60 second time clocks to keep the action fast, etc. Anything that lends to the tournament to lasting longer will only increase the amount of skill required to win. My example could be this: what if the structure were so slow that it essentially maintained roughly 250-500 BBs per player throughout the course of the tournament. In the infamous hand between Kantor and Raymer, this would have allowed Raymers opponent to correctly lay his QJ down and Raymer would live on (as both players said Kantor was pot committed to call). Not so if players had more BBs.

Could changes to the structure actually occur? I think the answer is probably no because I can't see both the non-pros and casino favoring a 3 week tourney, without making the vig crazy high. I think most players who have normal jobs could not play, which of course leads to less players and less dead money. In any event, there are real changes that can be made to favor the skilled player that don't involve running it twice...

[Voltron87]

this whole thread is a joke, right? you people cant be serious

[valenzuela]

horrible post.
1)jimmy has 20k, rick has 200k. rick raises to 20k , jimmy calls. jimmy has 84o, rick has AA boards come 567KK and 99T42.
jimmy has 20k, rick has 200k, rick raises to 18 k ,jimmy calls. board comes 567...
2)I think the fact that the blinds are 50k/100k instead of 250k/500k kinda acomplish that, dont u think?
3)I have 99 I raise to 50k and tighty moves all-in for his last 100k. I know he has AA/KK/QQ/AK!! ...well pot odds dictate a call...oh wait now I need to figure out the odds with two boards..grrr thanks a lot desert cat.
4) I have KK and dumbydonkstupid goes all-in without looking at his cards, doh dumbydonkystupid has AA...welll dumbydonkeystupid is clearly a better player than me.

For the dumber ones:
1)ppl can still outdraw u without being all-in
2)no example given above
3)pot odds have to be worked out all again
4)luck is not only those percentages u have in the espn red box.

[Rduke55]

I'm shocked at how many people are actually debating this.
I was amused by the OP and then I was worried when I saw the responses.