Bluffing in the WSOP

[bomblade]

Last year, when I watched the 2003 WSOP, I thought it looked like a lot of pros weren't adjusting their game for the players they were playing against. I have noticed a lot of good players in games at the places I play, haven't adjusted their game for what the game is today. This year though, watching the first 2 hours of the Main Event at the WSOP, I was stunned to see some of the play by certain people. Negreua in particular. Although he did say after he got knocked out that he didn't play well, and that you just can't bluff these guys, I think it should have been something he knew during the game. Because I will not name anyone specific, I can say some negative things here. In every table they showed, I couldn't believe how amateurish the players seemed. Even in the hands not in the televised table, where we didn't get to see the whole cards, I thought the players had some pretty obvious tells. I don't know about the numbers, but I'll take a stab at this. Out of the 2600 that were in the Main Event, I'd say 1000 got in by internet satellites. I'd say another 500, at least, got in by other satellites. You had a lot of players that aren't very good. You can very rarely bluff a bad player. Yet, I saw a lot of bluffing going on, and a lot of players losing their chips because of it. Hellmouth went nuts seeing some of the fish hands people played. Why did some of the best pros in the world, not adjust their game still to the new world of poker? I hope by next year, at the WSOP, we either don't have so many amateurs, or the best adjust their game to fit the new game. I'd go into more detail and more points to support my statements, but its 3:30am. I would rather comment on other's comments, if there are any.

[The4thFilm]

The most amateurs the better odds that Hellmuth whines, so they're crucial.

[ohgeetee]

IMO, winning a satellite or super satellite is more of a showing of skill than putting up 10k.

most of the free supers online you have to win 2 tournaments to get the buyin, or 1 huge ass tournament.

at the wsop, you are putting up like 2k for a 1 in 9(10?) shot at a buyin a lot of times with pros just looking to make a quick 10k.

I think the WSOP should move to a prelim type of event, where you have to win a major tourney to get in, or something along those lines, and possibly include some "internet majors" as well.

Only bad thing about poker right now is that its kinda like how the NFL started out. Theres lots of different companies all claiming to host world championships, etc. Yes, we recognize the WSOP as the big one, but it would be better if there were some sort of structure behind the scenes that tied all of hte tourneys together, like cardplayers leaderboard, but official.

[TomCollins]

Let the WSOP Champions tournament be for the pros. We NEED the WSOP to keep its "ANYONE CAN WIN" slogan. Cry me a river if you don't get to see good tv. We need Matt Hagin more than we need Phil Hellmuth. We need thousands of them pouring their buyins to feed us. Without them, we are left to fight each other, but with them, its like shooting fish in a barrel. Sure a few of them catch lightning in a bottle and win big, such as Ted Lawson, but if they COULDN'T win and COULDN't get on TV, do you really think there would be so much money in poker right now?

The tournament is getting huge, and possibly too big to manage (how many weeks would it take if there were 10k or 20k players). The WSOP must exist as the mirage that every home game player strives for. We need it in their reach.

Your qualifier idea may have some legs, but I would not want it to be near as strict. Harrahs, since they have locations everywhere, could easily raise the buy in, and impliment their own regional satelite system. Basically make it like ACT I-III's at Foxwoods, but across the entire country (are they worldwide at all?). Send them to regional events ahead of time, make it like the World Series with playoffs. But in the end, the WSOP must be an ANYONE CAN WIN event. We need the dead money, not just in the tournament, but in poker in general.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
The most amateurs the better odds that Hellmuth whines, so they're crucial.

[/ QUOTE ]


you spelled "wins" wrong.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The most amateurs the better odds that Hellmuth whines, so they're crucial.

[/ QUOTE ]


you spelled "wins" wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

you must have failed stats

[rjc199]

I was thinking this same thing hearing Negreanu talk. If I learned anything from party poker tournaments it is to never bluff in the early rounds. The fish will call with king high if they have to. They should have waited until the blinds started to increase to do their bluffing.

They also should have learned not to slow play. Slowplaying was an epidemic on those two episodes last night. Why slowplay against amateurs and fish? Just bet, they love to call!

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The most amateurs the better odds that Hellmuth whines, so they're crucial.

[/ QUOTE ]


you spelled "wins" wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a larger field increase his chances of winning? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[West]

I really disagree with the idea of forcing players to jump through eighteen hoops just to get a shot at playing against the "names". II'm not sure if that's exactly what you're getting at, but if they're so damn good, they can play against anybody. And IMHO, one of the reasons for the extreme surge in popularity of the game is definitely the fact that Chris Moneymaker or anyone else can win the buy in and start on equal footing with Johnny Chan, Phil Hellmuth and everyone else. Sure, if they have to increase the buy in from 10k to 25k, then fine, do it. But the vast majority of the entrants qualifed by some kind of satellite; the percentage that simply bought their way in was small.

[West]

Just don't make John Doe jump through a single hoop that Phil Hellmuth doesn't have to jump through too.