WSOP Suggestions
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
As a person who has never been to the WSOP, I really am not qualified to pontificate on the problems facing the current WSOP. But that never stopped me before. In honor of the calamity that is the WSOP, here is Jordan's suggestions for the future of the WSOP:
1. Multiple Locations- Harrahs owns multiple properties in Las Vegas, including the Rio, Harrahs, Paris, Bally's and the Flamingo hotel. So why the hell is the entire event only held at the Rio? If Harrah's organized themselves, they could spread the event to these various locations and skip having 5 versions of "Day 1." My fear is that the major drawback is the filming process. For ESPN, this would require 5 crews at once, instead of one (or probably two) crews working the one room for five days straight. Of course, this will make reporting (from bloggers and such) more difficult, too, but overall I think it's a viable option. It isn't a new idea, either. When the WSOP was held at Binions there was at least one year when they were beyond capacity and had to set up part of the game over at the Golden Nugget or some such place. It would also add the allure of saying, "I made the final poker room in the WSOP!"
2. Higher Buy-In- The main event has been a $10,000 buy-in since 1972. With inflation, that amount should be over $40,000 today. If it were, the amount of players would significantly drop. Is this a bad thing? Probably not. Your pros would stand a better chance in a smaller field. Also, the logisitics of the event would be better. There is some concern about cutting out the average Joe. That is, in some ways, the allure of the game. But even if the buy-in was increased to $25,000 or even $40,000 (or dare I say $50,000), there would still be Internet qualifiers. Plainly put, where there is a will, there is a way. So, let's up the buy-in and make this thing interesting.
3. Greater Variety in Games- Yes, NL Holdem is the bread and butter of the poker community right now. However, if Harrahs went to a multiple venue format, they could still have their plethora of NLHE events and squeeze in some more variety. Was there even a Razz event this year? I'll guess that NLHE will be the top dog for a loooooooooooooong time. However, this doesn't mean that the other games should be killed off. While we are at it, let's get more TV time for the other games. I, for one, prefer to watch a 2003 PLO8 event on ESPN than the most recent WPT NLHE show.
That's all for my list. Short and sweet. So, Harrahs, just email me and I'll fill you in on the other details. Until then, make mine poker!
posted by Jordan @ 6:17 PM,
9 Comments:
-
At 7:45 PM,
DuggleBogey said...
-
1. You'd have to hire 800-1000 dealers just for day one, and you'd have nothing for them to do after that.
2. They are not interested in making the tournament smaller. They want it HUGE.
3. The World Champion of Poker will always be determined at a holdem table. -
At 9:48 PM,
Jordan said...
-
1. True.
2. False. I'm not talking about what they want. I'm talking about logistics. You can still have 10k events, but if they made the Main Event a higher buy-in, they'd also get more rake. And the people who can't afford it are likely to pay a cheaper event, like, oh, say the 10k NL event...
3. True. I never suggested otherwise. I was just stating that in general they should widen the variety. You do know that there are preliminary events, yes? -
At 8:57 AM,
Jordan said...
-
Why do people get so snippy around here?
Defend, I just don't get your comments regarding #2. I gave a valid reason. It is the World Series, and it was about finding the best player. Naturally that meant that when it started, they made it a high buy-in so that they could attract the biggest players. Now, $10,000 is not worth as much as it used to be. I'm not saying it would be easy, but I still think that is a valid reason to raise the stakes. You would resolve the issue of 8k entries, potentially increase the prize pool, and cut out a lot of the dead money. WHen you say that you never heard anyone string together a strong argument for raising the fee, did you just mean you weren't convinced, because frankly the inflation rate is about as strong of an argument as there can be.
And yes, once again, #1 won't work because of the dealer situation. -
At 11:45 AM,
Jordan said...
-
Chi, from my understanding, even though they had the other games, it was still a lot more NLHE than in previous years.
Defend, Chi did a great job of explaining the benefits of the higher buy-in. The event WOULD BE pro heavy, but that is the point. We don't want it to be an "easy" tournament, per se, but we want it to be based more on skill than on luck. The super large fields make luck more important. By raising the buy-in, average joe would be less able to buy-in directly or even satellite in, so you'd be left with players who have earned their way in by being a winning poker player. Sure, you'd still have rich fish and satellite players, but it would (hopefully) be less so, and if it wasn't less, then at least the prize pool and house fee would be higher. In the end, I'd rather see a table of 8 pros and 2 average joe qualifiers than the other way around. Sure, those average joes might be great tournament players, but a lot of them are not. More skill, less luck...it's the poker ideal. -
At 2:46 PM,
Jordan said...
-
I think a little bit of history is in order. Prior to recent events, many of the pros did not care as much about the preliminary event bracelets. The main event was something held above the rest. While the main event is still king, with the explosion of televised poker, the importance of the WSOP and the expanded fields, the preliminary event bracelets are worth a lot more. As Barry Greenstein once mentioned, he started to play the preliminary events once Poker Superstars (a TV show) told him that they did not know what to state after his name (i.e., Barry Greenstein, WSOP Bracelet Winner).
Now that the preliminary events and bracelets are more important, a higher buy-in main event will not prevent average joes from playing against the best. They will still be able to play with the pros in the prelimianry events, many of which are televised. But the World Champion of Poker should be more than a fly-by-night player. Moneymaker (while I like him) is the perfect example of this. He wins, and then nada. Raymer has made a larger impact as did Hachem, but why do we need to decide the World Champion in a format that is not true to the original intentions of the WSOP. In the end, the online qualifiers (PokerStars alone sent well over 1000 into the 8k person event) will still be able to qualify online.
I think there is a disconnect between the original concept of the WSOP (to find the best player...and make money for Binion) and the current concept (an excessively large field where "anyone can win," which requires a greater degree of luck). -
At 3:28 PM,
TripJax said...
-
The first day they could hold the event at 5 or more places if need be if they could strike a deal with PokerTek to use the "dealerless" tables. Then when it gets down to 2000 or so peeps they could go back to the regular tournament style with dealers at one place.
I'm not saying it would work or it is the right idea logistically, I'm just throwing it out there for thought... -
At 5:23 PM,
Jordan said...
-
I think we can move beyond the esoteric of who or what is a top pro. I simply mean that the WSOP was originally made to determine who was best. The high buy-in prevented the not serious players from entering. Now, the buyin isn't an issue because of online poker. I doubt that the amount of satellites would drop off 66%, because some of the Sats start at $1 buy-ins and build there way up. But even if they did drop, instead of sending 2k players from Stars, you'd have 600, which is still more than enough.
Oh, and I disagree with the proposition that HORSE determines who the best player is better than NLHE. They are different games with different skill sets. I'd dare say that NLHE is a more difficult game to master because of the no limit aspect, as opposed to limit HORSE. That said, I like the idea of the non NLHE games, and I am a fan of HORSE generally. -
At 10:00 PM,
Hammer Player a.k.a Hoyazo said...
-
I have long thought they should up the buyin for the WSOP ME. I think 40k is a bit much, but I wouldn't mind seeing a move to 25k. No doubt it would either thin the field a bit, or it would increase the prize pool, either one of which is a fine goal to me. WPT Championships do it and do it well, so why not here. The pro's should be happier, and I wouldn't mind the effect if a small number fewer seats were won in online satellites. I somehow doubt there would be much less satelliting in to these events, but if there were I'd be ok with that too. I just think if they're not willing to cap the number of entrants, which I would oppose on the "everyman" theory espoused above, then upping the buyin to 25k makes perfect sense, and clearly at least one other major tournament has come to the same conclusion already.
Btw, I think the inflation argument is very compelling. It really is kinda weird that in 1971 the buyin was 10k, and today that same buyin is still that same 10k. I don't think that's enough alone to justify raising the buyin, but the other good effects discussed above combine with the inflation point to present what I think is a very compelling case. -
At 10:35 AM,
Jordan said...
-
Chi, let me redact a past statement. I did not mean to say that the ME really determines the Best Poker Player, as opposed to the HORSE event.
In the end, one poker tournament will NEVER alone make someone the Best Poker Player. However, as far as World Champions are concerned, the winner of the NO LIMIT HOLDEM Main Event should be considered the World Champion. Plainly put, NLHE is the game that most people play and that is where you will have the most competition. I love the other games, moreso than most, probably, but in the end, this is a NLHE world (for the time being).
Chip Reese might be a better player than whoever wins the 2006 ME, but the winner of the ME will be the World Champion, plain and simple. I have to add though, that I like the idea of Negreaunu's Triple Crown (the ME, the HORSE event, and something else...maybe the TOC?).
