World Series of Poker

Goodluck2me

Is it just me or do people not think that the main event of the World Series should be the one with the largest buy-in. I realise that it already has and continues to have the largest prizepool but surely an increase is needed to really vindicate and validate it as the "main event". I think 100,00 is probably too much, but it really would make it sickly more interesting if it was that big. How sick would bad beats be for that amount?
I think it should be 75K myself, and make it available to only the most successful players, as to be fair when Joe Soap wins it, although it makes for great TV/excitement they are never going to be the best player in the world, and by reducing it to a smaller field of top pro's you would surely get a higher standard fo winner.

jimmii

In reality its very unlikely that a really bad player is going to win it. Moneymaker and Yang aren't great but at the same time they are better than standard players. Jamie Gold had actually done pretty well in a good few tourneys in the year or so running up to his win and Hachem and Raymer are obviously pretty classy players.

I don't think they should make any changes the main event is what it is. Its massive and rediculous and gives everyone a chance. Changing it would be changing a lot of what was behind the poker boom originally. The $50k HORSE event was introduced to have an big exsclusive event that would be won by a big name pro there is no need to do the same with the main event.

Glowingmind

I think part of the attraction of keeping it as a 10k event is that fact that "anyone" can win it. Publicity-wise it makes a much better story for some random punter to take down a monsterous prize and go from being a nobody into a poker star over somoene who's a millionaire already.
Recently, many of the pros have referred to the HORSE tourney as being the one they all want to win, and given the standard of the final tables in the past couple of years, it should probably be pushed as being the pro's championship.
There's no reason they can't have a 100k event aswell, and i'd love to see it, but it's unlikely to garner the attention of somoene winning a tourney with a 6k+ field.

jimmii

The high roller events at other festivals gather little attention really and I don't think are even broadcast.

cardshark202

lol stupid idea. How do you decide who is successful enough?

jimmii

cardshark202 wrote: »

lol stupid idea. How do you decide who is successful enough?

Probably counts if you have a bracelet and played on loads of TV poker shows. You know like Jennifer Tilly. That way bad players would never ever win.

YULETIRED

goodluck2me wrote: »

Is it just me or do people not think that the main event of the World Series should be the one with the largest buy-in. I realise that it already has and continues to have the largest prizepool but surely an increase is needed to really vindicate and validate it as the "main event". I think 100,00 is probably too much, but it really would make it sickly more interesting if it was that big. How sick would bad beats be for that amount?
I think it should be 75K myself, and make it available to only the most successful players, as to be fair when Joe Soap wins it, although it makes for great TV/excitement they are never going to be the best player in the world, and by reducing it to a smaller field of top pro's you would surely get a higher standard fo winner.

Joe don't light those things when yer on the internet.....

cuterob

i think the 50k horse should be the main event as the word 'poker' covers a lot more than just NLH.. keep the event though as the 10k world championship NLH.. it'll still have thousands.. i think the wsop could be moving in this direction cause they are introducing a 10k championship event for a lot of the other games

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

aodea

You see the thing is that its still the one you wanna win plus the fact that its got huge money for first. I wudnt mind winning the wpt or ept finals or the irish open but the world series main event does blow them out of the water. Then me i wud take the 20 game in the jackpot!!!!:):)

carrigeen

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol, keep it as it is. There is a tradition and a history behind the 10k championship and the idea that the no hoper can compete and beat the best one time once he has got the money in his pocket. It's the essence of the American dream and the reason why the ESPN coverage is so popular and successful each year.

Moving the buyin to a prohibitive level and deliberately excluding people from entry goes against the whole ethos of this tournament and the values upon which it was founded. The thousands it gets each year are a sign of how successful a competition it is. It is great for poker. Why the **** would we want it changed?

spot on

CourierCollie

'ethos and values', surely your taking the piss!
It started largely as a promotional tool for Binions, and was orignally only open to high rollers. $10k was a lot of moolah in the early 70's. Remember when they had to introduce a second table for the extra large field of 13 players?
I think its weird that the buy in has never changed. It will have to be at some stage.

jimmii

$10K is still a decent chunk to the average person. It will probably have to go up at some point but not for ten years or so unless inflation goes super crazy. If the buyin was raised to $50k or $100k or something it would mean the field would be down to the same 200-300 players who play together all the time and most people who have been playing any length of time have won a tournament with that number of players. Beating 6000-7000 players makes it much more justifiable to be called a world champion.

HIVeindhoven

CourierCollie wrote: »

'ethos and values', surely your taking the piss!
.

LOL, yeah it always cracks me up when people start coming out with crap like "the WSOP has lost its soul" and "harrahs are sellouts". Its poker FFS, its all about the moolah at the end of the day nothing else matters. Look somewhere else to get your psuedo-spiritual tradition and "ethos". Poker has no soul.


BTW i'm willing to take action that the WSOP ME will experience another drop in numbers this year. Increased travel costs plus credit crunch woes are bound to be affecting the Degens who would normally be stumping up $10K they cannot afford to play this event.

Goodluck2me

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lMoving the buyin to a prohibitive level and deliberately excluding people from entry goes against the whole ethos of this tournament and the values upon which it was founded.

CourierCollie wrote: »

It started largely as a promotional tool for Binions, and was orignally only open to high rollers. $10k was a lot of moolah in the early 70's. Remember when they had to introduce a second table for the extra large field of 13 players?

It was never part of the American dream when it started, you didnt wait 3 months for it to finish, it was a high-roller exclusive event. If it went to $100,000 then it would regain that title imo.

a147pro

horse is for the masters
main event for the masses

and may it remain so

still only about 1% of poker players can afford that buy in so no need to increase it

RoundTower

HIVeindhoven wrote: »

BTW i'm willing to take action that the WSOP ME will experience another drop in numbers this year. Increased travel costs plus credit crunch woes are bound to be affecting the Degens who would normally be stumping up $10K they cannot afford to play this event.

I'll put $200 on it at evens.

I'd like to escrow this bet, find someone reputable on the poker forum who is willing to do it.

BigCityBanker

HIVeindhoven wrote: »

BTW i'm willing to take action that the WSOP ME will experience another drop in numbers this year. Increased travel costs plus credit crunch woes are bound to be affecting the Degens who would normally be stumping up $10K they cannot afford to play this event.

I will take $1k, id also like an escrow unless you reveal yourself to be somebody i know very well.

jimmii

I doubt someone is really going to give away money like that are they?

mewso

.

Slash/ED

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol, keep it as it is. There is a tradition and a history behind the 10k championship and the idea that the no hoper can compete and beat the best one time once he has got the money in his pocket. It's the essence of the American dream and the reason why the ESPN coverage is so popular and successful each year.

ESPNs coverage will become gradually less and less popular and successful (Already happening I think?) for this very reason, however.

Moneymaker did come and 'beat the best', in so much as he played on tables late on with iirc Freddy Deeb, Ivey who he busted (With an unreal suckout, but still), Humbeeeeerto and other big name players like even Farha who he beat heads up. This makes for great TV.

Jerry Yang beat a load of randomers we will largely never see again, as did Gold bar Wasicka who has had some results since the ME I think and obviously Cunningham. This isn't good TV, imo. The ME latter stages are contested by new players every year, and this takes away the prestige of winning it. Nobody would tune in to watch people sitting around to see who won the lotto for hours and hours on end each time, and with the field as big as it is that's what the ME is. The whole come and beat the best thing only makes good TV if it looks like there was something bar luck involved, on TV as things are, it looks like it's just a case of who runs better. People will get bored, and switch off, which they are doing I think.

I don't think people want to tune in to see who ran hottest this year out of people they've never heard of. Purely from a TV ratings point of view, a higher buy in makes more sense. Thin the field dramatically, which makes it more likely known pros will make the latter stages, and if it's the same five guys making the WSOP final table every year it'll actually be worth watching when an amateur breaks through to the final table and has a shot at winning and following people people already know play too will just be more interesting, imo.

The ME utterly bores me from a TV perspective, I watched a bit of the FT live but haven't seen any of the footage since, and I think people will lose interest. I can't see why people want to tune in to see if one randomers QQ holds up against another amateurs AK this year. Having one tournament thats set as the biggest (Which does mean having the largest buy in) is imo the best way to get ratings and keep people interested in poker in general to watch which is important for the future of the game.

Eh, rambled on a bit there really...

DubTony

jimmii wrote: »

Probably counts if you have a bracelet and played on loads of TV poker shows. You know like Jennifer Tilly. That way bad players would never ever win.

:eek:;):D:)

Wasn't sure which smilie to use for this one ....

Actually ... try this

jimmii wrote: »

Probably counts if you have a bracelet and played on loads of TV poker shows. That way bad players would never ever win. You know like Jennifer Tilly.

There, that's better.

mewso

Slash/ED wrote: »

ESPNs coverage will become gradually less and less popular and successful (Already happening I think?) for this very reason, however.

Moneymaker did come and 'beat the best', in so much as he played on tables late on with iirc Freddy Deeb, Ivey who he busted (With an unreal suckout, but still), Humbeeeeerto and other big name players like even Farha who he beat heads up. This makes for great TV.

Jerry Yang beat a load of randomers we will largely never see again, as did Gold bar Wasicka who has had some results since the ME I think and obviously Cunningham. This isn't good TV, imo. The ME latter stages are contested by new players every year, and this takes away the prestige of winning it. Nobody would tune in to watch people sitting around to see who won the lotto for hours and hours on end each time, and with the field as big as it is that's what the ME is. The whole come and beat the best thing only makes good TV if it looks like there was something bar luck involved, on TV as things are, it looks like it's just a case of who runs better. People will get bored, and switch off, which they are doing I think.

I don't think people want to tune in to see who ran hottest this year out of people they've never heard of. Purely from a TV ratings point of view, a higher buy in makes more sense. Thin the field dramatically, which makes it more likely known pros will make the latter stages, and if it's the same five guys making the WSOP final table every year it'll actually be worth watching when an amateur breaks through to the final table and has a shot at winning and following people people already know play too will just be more interesting, imo.

The ME utterly bores me from a TV perspective, I watched a bit of the FT live but haven't seen any of the footage since, and I think people will lose interest. I can't see why people want to tune in to see if one randomers QQ holds up against another amateurs AK this year. Having one tournament thats set as the biggest (Which does mean having the largest buy in) is imo the best way to get ratings and keep people interested in poker in general to watch which is important for the future of the game.

Eh, rambled on a bit there really...

I think a sure fire way to put people off is to make the buy-in prohibitive. One of the major selling points from ESPN's point of view is the everyman that plays in it. They probably wouldn't be so keen if they couldn't do the Oprah bits on various players.

The main problem with poker on tv in general is it needs to move on. In snooker terms for example we don't need to tell viewers that the player needs to take the yellow followed by green and so on. We can move on to explaining complicated shots so the viewer can appreciate the skills and thought processes. Same for poker. Time to start showing some interesting hands besides the all-ins and time to get commentators who know what they are talking about.

I have always enjoyed watching the final table of the ME live much more so than the edited highlights. I spoke of this before but I paid to watch the Moneymaker final table back in 2003 and I remember Jason Lester in a hand with Amir Vahedi. On the river Vahedi put in a huge bet. Lester thought for at least 10 minutes and eventually called with Ace high to take the pot. The whole hand was far more fascinating than any all-in and it never made the ESPN coverage.

I remember a hand in the ESPN coverage where a pro whose name escapes me called a modest raise from an unknown with 4c5c. The flop gave him a flush draw and the unknown pushed for 30k with about the same in the pot. The pro made the call and hit his flush. All along Norman Chad was talking about how bad this play was with 4c5c. Thats your supposed expert commentating.

We don't need to increase the price. I agree with Lloyd on the basic spirit of this event. I've always wanted to play in the ME and maybe I never will but if they raise the buy-in I deffinitely never will. I'll be stuck at home watching Chris Ferguson cut bananas with playing cards.

strewelpeter

musician wrote: »

...Time to start showing some interesting hands besides the all-ins and time to get commentators who know what they are talking about...

There was a show that did that, it was called High Stakes Poker and they have canceled it. too much content and not enough morons waving their hands and screaming into a mike like it was a horse race.

There must be a a market for a program that is pitched somewhere between Cardrunners and WPT Smackdown. One that would analyse a few hands in the course of a tourney in some kind of depth. Then again maybe not, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the viewing public. If sticking a camera in front of a poker table for a few hours and having some failed football commentator jump up and down shouting buzzwords excitedly sells TV advertising then thats all we are going to get.

mistabutta

BigCityBanker wrote: »

I will take $1k, id also like an escrow unless you reveal yourself to be somebody i know very well.

3 out of the first 4 events this year have been down in numbers from last year..and tv coverage has been cut down from the amount filmed and shown last year aswell.. you may wanna not do this bet

Slash/ED

Was there not a record set for largest non ME field already this year? And of course the numbers in the PLHE are down, it's a 10k buy in this year!

Eoin The Kid

Simple question how many people on here could afford to buyin to the main event for $10k bout 7.2k euro and thats not including flights, hotel, etc. If you look at pokerstars and full tilt they are sending bout 3000 players alone not to mention all the other sites, so if you take out the on line players you would not even get 1500 players buying in out of there own money. So whats the point of raising the buy in.

Slash/ED

Well those 3,000 players won 12.5k in satalites in order to play (Buy in + accom). They aren't actually paid into the event and can choose not to play and take the money. It is their 'own money'.

a147pro

In general (and I only have NTL basic) the coverage of poker on telly is appalling and the beautiful parts of the game which musician refers to above, rarely receive any focus. Thats what made High Stakes Poker enjoyable (apart from the stakes) and I'm disappointed to see someone saying they finished making it, it was class and must have been cheap to make. Kaplan knew what he was on about. FWIW, what I saw of the WSOP coverage last year there was better than average poker show analysis of hands, depending on who was 'sitting in' in the commentary.

I don't like this idea of bumping up the buy in of the main event, particularly when the likes of the HORSE tournament is televised. I particularly don't like it if the expressed purpose is to ensure more pros make the final table, to ensure interest. We should be interested in watching people playing good poker, as evidenced by the hands they play and the moves they make, not purely because they are big name pros, at least some of whom, as we know, are bad players who sustain publicity by their personalities. The celebrity culture should be avoided. Raymer and Hachem weren't famous pros when they won, but they are class players, are a pleasure to watch now and represented poker very well during their time as champions.

There must also be an element of the FA cup 'anyone can win it' too, or following lads you know or might have played against occasionally go deep. I have very fond memories of reading Antes Up coverage, following Andy Black onto the final table, John Magill very close onto it, the Joe show getting your man to call his quads while he took proposition bets with the railbirds as to how many Garth Brooks songs he could sing, Dave Murray riling the table for ages and telling some chap he just sucked out on that the golden rule in tournaments was to win your coin flips. Reading late night day reports of those still in and those knocked out, and why; Daithio's adventures with KK against the Jack Daniels drinking player. Thats entertainment, and it was borne out by the number of new posters who would come on line at that time of the year to get chip counts and the like. That side of the main event is beautiful and would not be so if it was exclusive.

Besides, I want to play it some day and the wife will not be pleased with more than $10k. The whores are enough to worry about.

mormank

well i know any other so called sport you would only watch with pros playin in it. who for example watches footie outside of the premier league. they should up the buy in significantly. something in line with inflation since the 70's. who wants to watch randomers!! not me. im tired of watching mongs try to play the game day in day out, why would i want to put myself through that again at a ME final table. makes me sad to see players who I (not being cocky) am better than. most of us are better than...

pokerstars and full tilt then can place a higher priority on sats for more local events such as ept's etc...why not sat 3000 players into the irish open for example!!!

mewso

So watch the H.O.R.S.E.