Daniel Negreanu On The Format of the WSOP 50K Horse

From FullContactPoker.com
The 50K HORSE- A One Year Blip

27 Jun 2009

I don't make all the decisions regarding the WSOP. I help out, I add input, and I speak out when I am passionate about something. This $50,000 HORSE event is something I'm very passionate about and the decisions ultimately made saddened me a great deal.

In year one, the event was perfectly designed for television. To get to the final table, you couldn't be an amateur really, you'd have to play all the games well for the most part. That's good, because it guaranteed big name players at the end. That's good for television.
What's not good for television is ANY form of poker outside of no limit hold'em. It doesn't work and the ratings emphatically show that. This is the reason it was so important to satisfy all involved by switching the game to no limit hold'em at the final table. That way, in order to win this special event, not only will you have to have great limit skills, but you also have to be good at the "Cadillac of Poker" no limit hold'em. It was perfect. Absolutely the perfect made for television event that would feature top pros, exciting poker at the final table, and most importantly, great ratings.

In year two, about five people may have whined and complained that it should be HORSE at the final table. They just didn't understand the big picture and why they were so clearly wrong. The event NEVER should have been changed, and make no mistake, it was CHANGED to HORSE at the final table, not the other way around. Those people should have been completely ignored because they just "didn't get it." Besides, they would still have played the tournament anyway.

Well, after two years of suffering ratings due to the fact that explaining and watching a Stud 8 hand is extremely difficult and boring, ESPN decided they just can't air it any more. The ratings were pitiful.

The smart thing to do was to make the change immediately back to the original format. Some people argued against my view. I knew with all my heart that those who disagreed with me were wrong, but there is only so much I can do. Majority rules. I was a bit shocked by it, and wished they'd just listen to me, but in the end the decision went the wrong way.

(Hate to Say I Told You So)

After three successful years of 143. 148, and 148 players, this year we got 95 and no, the economy was NOT the primary reason for that. Not even close. No TV is what caused it. Not for the reasons you might think. Not because poker players are so desperate to be on television, the main reason we lost so many players is that many pros today have sponsorship deals. Many of those deals are contingent on the fact that the event is televised.
For example, Pepsi might sign Joe Cassidy to a deal where he wears their logo. They might pay him a yearly salary and agree to pay his buy ins for televised tournaments. Well, with ESPN coverage gone, instead of Pepsi ponying up the money, Joe would have to fork over the whole $50,000 out of pocket. There is no longer any incentive at all for Pepsi to pay his buy in because they won't get any real logo exposure out of it.

Obviously I'm talking about online sites here. In past years the event has seen lots and lots of sponsored pros in event. Frankly, a lot of those players aren't exactly world class which adds EV to the grinders who play mixed cash games for a living. These sponsored players would never consider putting up $50,000 to play in the event, but if their sponsors are willing to back them, they'll absolutely give it a go.

So first you have about 25-30 sponsored players absent from the event, and then another 25-30 or so who don't think the tournament has enough value in it without the sponsored pros. We instantly lose out on 1/3 of the field, all because we didn't respect the fact that HORSE on TV doesn't work, and that TV is necessary to maintain the prestige of the event.


Now for the good news:

I'm very confident that the 50K event WILL thrive in years to come, and that this was just a one year "boo boo" if you will. I'm confident that the decision makers will see, after the drop in numbers, just how important it is to go back to the original format, and get it back on television. I'll be louder than ever in reminding them how important it is that this event continues to hold a high level of prestige.
In talking with some people today, I definitely felt more support than I did before in changing it back. We'll have it all fixed next year. All in all, I'm so incredibly happy with the amount of input the players have at the WSOP over the last few years. Every year you see improvements and less complaints. There will always be complaints, but we are all lucky that Jeffrey Pollack, Jack Effel, and the rest of the staff hear our gripes, take them seriously, and do what they can to address them. If only they'd just listen to EVERYTHING I say!!! Haha, just kidding, kinda, sorta serious :-)


Day one of the HORSE is in the books and I put on a great performance today. I was more focused then ever. Sorry to the railbirds, I wasn't as engaged with them as I normally am, but I'm playing with elite players and feel the need to watch every hand. My focus on day one here was better than ever. I feel like I really rose to the occasion.
This event is a good one for me. The last two years I've held the chip lead with about 20 players left and have yet to win it. I will win this thing, whether it's this year, or in future years. I excel at all five disciplines and honestly don't feel like I have a weak game in the mix. I'm very excited about my start and expect nothing less than a deep run. I always feel like one of the top favorites to win it, and this year is no different.

I'm currently in 23rd place with 91 of the original 95 still remaining with 204,100. I'm going to put a rubber band around my original 150k stack and hope I NEVER have to use it! My table for tomorrow:

1. Scott Clements 123,200
2. Allen Kessler 213,100
3. Erik Seidel 224,300
4. Daniel Negreanu 204,100
5. Andy Black 264,700
6. Chau Giang 145,100
7. David Grey 177,200

I'm happy with the table draw. It's a decent mix of action players and conservative, straight forward players.

HOLD'EM: Chau is good at everything, but Erik Seidel is also very good at limit hold'em.
OMAHA: The Omaha is a tough spot with Clements and Giang, both are loose aggressive and play well post flop.
RAZZ: No one at the table "scares" me in Razz.
STUD: David Grey's best game without question. He's not wild, or out there in Stud, but he makes very good decisions.
STUD 8: Maybe Allen Kessler's best game of the mix, I dunno, but who cares... it's Allen Kessler!

The biggest wild card at the table is Andy Black. I didn't even know he played limit, so I have no idea how he plays these games. I'll be paying especially close attention to him and looking for any exploitable flaws I can find.

Time for bed guys.... exciting day tommorow, 2500-5000 limit and a 4:00pm start.

That was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it, did that come off his blog?

its a horse event, horse at ft imo

Agreed. Seems strange that it wouldn't be televised, seen as you're going to get the biggest names playing at the final table.

But this made me rofl:

Thanks for the share, and i very much wanted this to be televised all the big names play in this event..

Love Daniel, disagree with his assessment here.

Its HORSE, it isn't a game for specialists, its poker in general at its most competitive event.

Daniels idea makes everything up to the Final Table little more than a satellite tourney. While I'd like to watch the HORSE tourney, unedited, because I know that with hole cams I can understand what's going on, I don't have to watch the game, and TV just isn't a good enough reason to pervert the game so that masses of asses can think its a gas.

Yes this is from Daniel's blog.

I think Daniel's point is that if the final table is HORSE, then the rating will be down. If the ratings are down, the event will not be on TV. If the event is not on TV, then less players will enter the event.

The first year of the 50K HORSE the final table was No Limit Holdem becuase that was the only way ESPN would commit to airing it. Since then it was been HORSE and the casual viewer (who make up the vast majority of viewers) simply won't watch games they don't understand and they don't understand 4 of the 5 games in HORSE.

Now it was very stange to me in the first year and I'm not sure from a competition point of view that it makes sense. But from a promotional view it does.

Perhaps there is a compromise somewhere in between. Perhaps at the final table they could do 2 hours of Limit Holdem followed by 30 minutes of each of the other games.

I don't know. Trying to predict what the American viewing public will watch has driving better men than I crazy.

I think they should have listened to Daniel. Of course rating will suck if no limit is not at the final table. Who wants to watch somebody get a 12347 for a low and win the whole thing LOL. I really think Daniel is one of the smartest poker players in the world. I often play like him in my tournaments. LISTEN TO DANIEL

His point seems to have only to do with his ability to make money on the event. If it's televised, he may get his entry paid for, the competition will be weaker, and the prize pool will be bigger. If that's the only measure of whether the format is ideal then he's right. If it's about the integrity of the game and prestige for the winner, he's completely wrong. This event stands out because of the very high buyin and the multi-game format. Why not just put on another $10k NL tourney if they need to fill another timeslot with the same old crap? Or hold another invitation only game like PAD or HSP?

since they're basically playing to entertain everyone, it might as well just be NLHE at the FT.

It's not for TV it's for the tournament fees, etc. If this were about TV it wouldn't be an issue.

Just because of the lack of T.V. air time, doesn't mean those players should stop playing. The non-advertisement issue is a load of BS to me. Those players could still play if they wanted to, regardless of their sponsors not being able to be shown on T.V.

What a crock

Did you read what he said? Of course they could play if they wanted to, but they won't because its not +EV for them without sponsorship.

Daniel is my favorite poker player and i support what he had to say about the 50k H.O.R.S.E event. I enjoy watching this event because all the pro's who play in it, and I play HORSE on pokerstars. I understand that spnsorships play a big part w/ the buy ins, but i still think that is not gonna stop many of the pro's from playing this event because they know that this is their event. I still think this event should still be televized because all the big name's that participate on the event.

i would tend to disagree with daniel here as well. it is a h.o.r.s.e. event. yes some people may not understand it or want to watch it on tv, but imo, if you start catering too much to espn, you might end up doing crazy stuff like moving the final table to november and completely skewing the outcome. ultimately, harrahs has the wsop, and they could certainly have the event on another network if espn wants too much say in it.

Can't believe I'm sayin this but, I have to take Daniels side over yours dj. While suckin up to TV has helped render baseball nearly irrelevant, poker needs TV.

I am inclined to agree with Daniel.

Some great discussion on a fantastic topic. Daniel makes a great case for being televised right here...

"Obviously I'm talking about online sites here. In past years the event has seen lots and lots of sponsored pros in event. Frankly, a lot of those players aren't exactly world class which adds EV to the grinders who play mixed cash games for a living. These sponsored players would never consider putting up $50,000 to play in the event, but if their sponsors are willing to back them, they'll absolutely give it a go.

So first you have about 25-30 sponsored players absent from the event, and then another 25-30 or so who don't think the tournament has enough value in it without the sponsored pros. We instantly lose out on 1/3 of the field, all because we didn't respect the fact that HORSE on TV doesn't work, and that TV is necessary to maintain the prestige of the event."

However, I must disagree with his last statement. The players themselves plunking down 50k are fully aware of the prestige lent by a good HORSE finish against the cream of the crop. Why would they care about the masses of asses who cannot appreciate a game of Razz or Omaha HL, and are only interested in the big pokerstars playing NLHE? Guess what though? Alongside Gus, Ivey, Scotty N, and Brunson, you'll find names most layman won't even recognize, like Giang, Monnette, Chiu, Glantz, Habib, and Chen.

Excellent point. One clarification. HORSE is a specialty of sorts. Yes, you must be somewhat skilled at all 5 games, but you must be an expert at 1) the disciplines inherent in limit, and 2) stud. Razz & Stud H/L are still Stud games, just variations. But that even furthers your point about perversion. And further still, it is grossly unfair to the players who are experts in these 'specialties', having for 4 days grinded and clawed their way to the final table, to have to play NLHE, a game requiring wildly different skills, even from Limit HE. Final table is where you make the big money - each person eliminated becomes a huge jump in cash.

Beautifully put, Reducto, sums it up nicely.

I think there are possibly a couple reasons HORSE might fall flat on TV. 1) People aren't familiar with games other than NLHE, so they don't care. You have to give it more time than 1 televised event. 2) The coverage/reporting for mixed events are inept at the games, thus not able to present it in an interesting, exciting, and knowledgeable way.

-1 You were kidding though, right? While I'm sure most of the 50k HORSE player are at least someone adept at NLHE, many having cut their teeth on it, I doubt the ones with overwhelming success in limit would be in the mood to entertain anyone.

LOL! Yup, yup, yup, and yup.

HORSE ... is 5 limit stakes games. How can someone say they won a HORSE tourney by playing a 6th game of nlhe?

Eight innings of baseball and the game winner decided on a sudden death football field.

If it's about sponsorships ... then it's about MONEY ... not poker.

If it's about TV ratings ... then it's about MONEY ... not poker.

If it's about TV exposure for players ... then it's about MONEY ... not poker.

If you make it to the final table, then you are already winning a lot of money. As Daniel said, the increased exposure means more players in the pool and usually less skilled players in the pool.

So, In my mind essentially what happens if you let the final table run as NL Holdem then everyone at the final table earns more money.

If you asked all 9 players at the final table, I think they would all agree to switch it on the spot.

You know what, that is an excellent argument, never really thought about it that way. Now I'm kinda torn. Another thought was that they should bring the buy-in down to $20k - $25k, attract more players (if not more dead-ish money), tell ESPN to shove it (pun intended), and the integrity of the HORSE prestige stays intact.

Unfortunately I think they are more likely to replace the 50K HORSE with another 1.5K NL event than make it marketable for TV. Since the WSOP left Binions there have been dumb decisions made year after year.

Have the players play in tents outside instead of clearing some slots to make room.

Ban players from tipping the tournament dealers.

That is just a couple of the stupid things I remember off the top of my head, I am sure there are more.

cliff notes: no one wants to watch a HORSE FT on TV where they actually play HORSE

Everyone knows razz is fun as hell to watch...

Of course it's about the money, it's a 50k event. Why not just make it a freeroll? I'm going to make a list of people who benefit and people who don't:

benefit:

ESPN, sponsors, sponsored players, HORSE experts with nlhe experience, Harrahs, viewers, online players who play the casual viewers

Don't benefit:

HORSE experts who suck at nlhe and have no problem fronting 50k to play a HORSE tourney

Which one's bigger? Also wouldn't this variation of HORSE require more skill because now you need to know 6 games? Also it's not completely out of the ordinary like football to end a baseball game, I mean one of the letters in HORSE is H and that stands for Hold 'em. I think using nlhe at FT is more similar to ending a tied hockey game with a shootout to determine the winner. Shootouts occur so rarely within actual games that they may as well not even be part of the game before that rule change. Now all of a sudden when the skills were passes setting up shots or teamwork the only skill needed to win is breakaways. It's still poker and it's still hold 'em, it's just a more popular version which will benefit practically everyone.

This is an argument a lot like the Main Event final table delay, IMO. This year shows without doubt what happens when they don't televise it, and if playing NLHE at the final table is the sticking point then meh, do what ESPN says and play NLHE.

The trophy's named after Chip Reese, and he played NLHE at the final table to win the first one.

Keep in mind too, there isn't even an "OMGZ it's tradition they're ruining what was once a grand and meaningful affair" argument to be made here. It's only the fourth year they've run the tournament.

All i know is, I love D Neg b/c he's made thousands of online fish try to play 'small ball' poker and fail!

One of the best feelings in poker for me right now is calling a min-raise IP with sc's & flopping a huge draw, villain min-bets/min-raises me all the way to the river where i hit said draw, i get called a fish b/c i drew out getting correct odds all the way, rinse and repeat, thank you daniel, you may have small ball down to an art form but millions of people who copy you do not

And yeah, horse at the FT table definetly, i don't agree with him there at all, sounds to me like he's bitter that one of the events that he is good at has had the fish pool lessened, which is understandable, every player wants a bigger edge, but not a reason to change it to HE at the ft imo.

99% of people who use the term "small ball" (especially on this forum) have no idea wtf they're talking about and are completely misapplying the concept and using it as an excuse to be a weak/tight calling station.

^^^^ That.

The prestige of winning this event is still the prestige of winning this event whether it's on television or not. And if any of them say it is less prestigious because it isn't televised, then they are wrong and contrary to Daniel it would in fact be all about being on television. So it's either prestigious or it's about being on televsion.

Um, yeah, that's exactly what makes it a crock. They know they aren't likely good enough to front that money and win, but they'll gladly take a ride on someone else's dime. Well DUH. Someone would have to be a complete moron to refuse to play when someone else is going to pay for them and they get to keep their winnings. That's not rocket science. Get someone to pay for me and I'll play, but I won't plunk down $50K either.

This is 100% true. I like Daniel and enjoy watching him play, but this post is one big whine imo. Basically as highlighted in reducto's post, Daniels blog entry could simply have been, "I'm upset with how the HORSE event is run. I would much happier if they'd arrange it so that I can play for free against weak opponents to leverage my skills to make more money out of a huge prize pool. kthxbai. /blog"

Well a freeroll is pretty much what Daniel is saying too at least in terms of him and his pro buddies. In his eyes everything possible should be done to make it possible for him and the other pros to freeroll in this.

I could support this if, and only if, they changed the format from five games to six games. Rename it to HORSEN and the "N" can be one level of NLHE that rotates through. Otherwise it's still a five game event with a new one thrown in on the end so pros can play for free on TV.

The H in HORSE is for "Limit Holdem" just like the E is for "Limit Stud Eight" But since all the games are limit they decided using just the first letters would make L.L.L.L.L. too hard to pronounce.

So we should expect a new article coming soon explaining the intracacies of both small ball poker as well as the details of why all the noobs and experienced players here are doing it wrong?

ok, how about in the main event ft, we play badugi

does that make sense?

Yes, as long as Daniel and his buddies get to play on TV for free.

The 50k event was created so that the pros had an event they could refer to as the "real ME" once the actual ME got so big it was extremely unlikely any particular individual would win it.

It's HORSE so that it stops the "casual" rich player or sattellites from pokersites ballooning the field there as well (I'm sure if it was a 50k nl event it would be quadruple the size).

Trouble is the field is now too small and TV's not interested. Can't have their cake and eat it.

obv they need to make it an 8 game event

Apparently they can - they've just gotta play NLHE at the final table.

The event would still carry all the other benefits for the pros you mentioned above and ESPN would have them back in a heartbeat. Especially next year when they won't have the $40K championship competing for TV time.

What I wonder is just how much Daniel is exaggerating saying only five people were concerned about whether the final table was HORSE or NLHE. Polling all this year's entrants would be interesting.

One other way to put this. What would people prefer if it came down to:

1. A $50K HORSE event where they play NLHE at the final table, or
2. No event at all?