Super Buy-ins... Good or Bad?

Pokernews is debating wether $250K buy-ins are good for the game of poker.

One argument says that any buy-in should be allowed. It only adds excitement to the game and gives us poker fans just another super buy-in to gawk at.

Another arguement says that a tourney that only has 20 players (such as the Aussie $250k Super Highroller) shouldnt be allowed to count on the All-time money list. It also mentions that if these buy ins become more common that you will see less and less of the superstars playing in the $10k events.

In my opinion... I dont really look at the "All time money" list as a measurement of a poker player. If it was then Stu Unger and Doyle would never be considered among the top. I say if they can afford it, or get the backing, then play in it.

What do you think?

I have never looked at the all time money list.

I think a good poker player is someone that is very consistant or seen at the final tables.

Also, who cares if they dont buy into the 10k event. There are alot of people out there that are gonna play in that event. By no means will that tourny be short of people.

I can not afford the sunday million, but I sometimes watch the final table replay.

I can not afford High Stakes Poker, but watch it.

etc, etc,

It will provide interesting TV if it makes it to TV, but think about it for a sec. Who these days wants to flaunt the fact they got so much money they are willing to show the world they can lose it and not bat an eye.