What's with the WSOP?

I just read Daniel Negraneu's blog and did some research of my own.

Just posted the WSOP schedule to my blog:

www.chickenfuckersinc.blogspot.com


When did the WSOP become the world series of hold'em?

This sucks... no mixed games or cool low-buy-in events other than hold'em.

I thought the cool thing about Phil, Phil, Doyle, Johnny and the rest of the pros... was that they could win in any game at any limit...

How can the WSOP shun the base of players that have kept it going since the Binion Days. I thik those players that devote themselves to the theory and challenge of the game, those type of players that post on this website, and anyone that didn't derive from the on-line poker community... is going to be slightly offended by this schedule.

Do you think the versatille poker player of yester-year is a thing of the past?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
How can the WSOP shun the base of players that have kept it going since the Binion Days.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do remember that Binions in Veags went bankrupt, right? With friends like them who needs enemies?

Binions went BK because of poor management and the brother/sister/brother hatred.

The brand name and the strategies are still "money". Jack is making out like a rich oil tycoon by selling the "binions" and "WSOP" brand and royalty rights.

My question is more about the old guard of poker players who can play any game at any time at any level.

Is that type of study and discipline dead to the days of quick easy hold'em cash.

[ZenMusician]

When games like 2-7 and Omaha/8 get played
by the Celebrity Poker hacks, not only will I be
vomiting but it will be one hell of a snowball
fight in Hell. HE, and moreover NL Tournament
HE is the only game people know...just look in
the home poker forum, every post about a
"game" - everyone immediately "knows" it is
a NLHE Tourney game.

-ZEN

[UATrewqaz]

NL Hold'em is popular for a few reasons

1. Fixed buy in tournies. You pay your tourney fee and you can play for hours and hours before you bust. A bad player will lose alot more playing any sort of cash game.

2. NL = big pots, very exciting. Squeezing an extra bet or two out of a hand in stud doesn't really thrill. Doubling or tripling your whole stack does.

3. Hold'em has a flop. BOOM you get to see 3 cards at once. Any two cards can flop a monster hand, you never know what the flop is gonna bring!

4. Fixed positions throughout the hand. Casual players are often confused by games where the betting positions change throughout the hand. Nobody wants to look "stupid" and hold em has very simple rules, as far as a poker game goes compared to some of the other games, like stud or omaha.

5. The "Rounders" factor. "No limit hold em is the Cadillac of poker."

There are probably a bunch more reasons but this a good list.

Society tends likes things "standardized"

[willthethrill]

I whole-heartedly agree with your point. The best thing about the events other than NLHE is that the winner was never some lucky amateur. It always seemed to be one of the best pros in the tournament. Now in the WSOP NLHE lucky amateurs knock out the skilled pros that I'd rather watch.

I definitely don't think versatile poker players are a thing of the past. The best players will always be experts at various games. Becoming the best at any game requires mastery of them all. For the record, helmuth has never won a bracelet in an event other than hold 'em

Phil won the European Stud Championship a few years ago. I forget the title.

It's crazy. I do decent in Hold 'Em these days, but I make a killing in Omaha. I'm just fine with Hold 'Em being the only game most people know.

The most fun I've had playing poker in years was at the Bicycle casino two months ago.

On a whim... we got a $10-20 limit HORSE game going. Unfortunately, I had to play against the best players in the house... and after we busted the fish... we could sustain the game for more than a few hours.

He actually did better in Omaha events this year at the WSOP than he did at the hold em events.