The WSOP main event debacle

I just wanted to see what people in this forum think about the new format for the final table of the WSOP?

I personally think that it is a ridiculous attempt to make more money. What happens when someone has momentum and is in the zone.... they now have to wait 3 months and ruin any momentum or presence they had before

I wouldn't call it a debacle, but don't think it's a good idea either. Seems to me WSOP 2008 excitement is over now. I couldn't care less who wins the final table of the main event.

LOL at "momentum" being what you need to win. Back to your Roulette table sir, 'red' is due...

Have you played any multi day tourneys?? Let me paint this picture for you, it's the final 16 of the biggest poker tourney in the world and you have set your table image" (thank-you aliengenius for noticing my mistake) up as a loose aggresive player. You've been card dry for a while but steal blinds every now and again because of your reputation (a la Gus Hanson). On one of the last hands before the top 9 you win a monster pot...... now you have to go home and wait for 3 months to continue. My point is that you've gained respect from the table because you made a big bet/raise and had the best hand. In poker that's called momentum and you can definitely use that to your advantage. Other people repect raises and you'll in turn take in more small pots. It's not roulette, it's taking advantage of a situation. Most of that is lost in the new format.

And roundcat you're right debacle is too strong a word!

edit- all good points aliengenius... but i can't post any more today (lol yes i understand the 7 post rule is a necessary evil!)... look forward to continuing the debate tomorrow.

Well, it's called "table image" first of all. Also, none of your opponents are going to forget what they think of you. There is now an extra level of meta-game, whereby we will get to see who adjusts to the adjustments that opponents will certainly make give research and training in the interim. And that's a good thing, imo.

Don't hate change, especially one that is good for the game as a whole.
1. individual final table players will be able to secure more sponsorship money
2. the game will continue to be positively marketed to the general public as a positive (non-criminal) undertaking
3. more viewers = more new inexperienced players coming into the game

Think about the introduction of hole card cams and how HUGE a change that was that worked out VERY well, despite the far more legitimate grumblings of elite players that their "secrets" would now be revealed.

Did they change the rules for the final main event table?

I dont think this went as planned. I think its hurting them because they have 9 people that just don't seem marketable. Also the only people who even know who/what the november 9 is, are people that actually follow poker. I dont think its going to draw anyone new in, so far this has been a bad idea...very very bad idea.

Wait 3 months just to finish a game???,what a crock of (*$%.Im glad I dont watch TV poker.

Why? Because it's something new/different?

There is absolutely ZERO valid/legitimate argument against this.

As noted:


See here:

The Art of Progress - WSOP Final Table Rescheduled

By shronk

“The art of progress is to preserve order amid change.” - Alfred North Whitehead. That may as well be Jeffrey Pollack’s motto. No single sports television event has shown the amount of growth in as short amount of time as the World Series of Poker over the last few years. This is almost wholly due to the new ideas and changes put forth by Pollack, Harrah’s, and ESPN. If hastily handled, such drastic and sudden growth could have easily sunk such a huge enterprise. However, the WSOP powers-that-be have demonstrated a commitment to progress, a willingness to admit their mistakes, and dead-on accuracy when it comes to making changes that helped grow the game of poker.

The latest change to the WSOP is the pushing back of the final table of the $10,000 Main Event. Obviously it was met with fierce opposition and criticism (but let’s be honest, is there any change to the WSOP that could be announced without hordes of naysayers screaming their opinions?). People ultimately hate change, and they hate it even more when they perceive it to only be benefitting people that aren’t them. To really understand the benefits of this move, we have to look at how it benefits everyone – including the final table players and the poker community as a whole.

The final nine players will obviously experience unprecedented media and sponsorship opportunities. I think logical minds will agree that the final table becomes infinitely more interesting if we know more about the people involved. I covered the entire WSOP last year and was among the last 20 people to leave the Amazon Room after Jerry Yang took down the title, and right now I couldn’t name five of the final table players. 2007 final table participant Jon Kalmar went deep in the recent WPT Championship at Bellagio and more than one tournament reporter had to ask me who he was. Is there any argument that it would be better for all of us if even more of these guys were stars? This break will allow players to hire agents and break into the mainstream media to bring more viewers to the WSOP, which in turn will bring more players, more money, and more fish.

The final nine players will also benefit from money added to the prize pool. Harrah’s plans on paying out ninth place money to all the final table players and placing the balance of the money (presumably around $20 million) into an interest-bearing account for the ten week delay. The interest accrued off that sum will surely be nothing to scoff at and will be given directly back to the players.

The WSOP fields have slightly shrunk since the passing of the IUGEA. If the reward for final tabling (interest money added to prize pool, more sponsorships, more stardom, and ultimately more money) becomes greater, that will just attract more players to the main event. Along with these new players comes the $10,000 in equity they just added to your tournament, plus the likelihood of one of them gifting off chips to you – more dead money and softer fields sounds like a tournament I’d want to be a part of.

On the surface, ESPN getting higher ratings doesn’t sound like something the average player should care about. If you look deeper, however, you’ll realize that every time poker is shown on a mainstream television network, it helps to legitimize the industry. In the era of the IUGEA and some of the online scandals that we’ve suffered through, the poker industry needs legitimacy to survive. By placing the Main Event front-and-center on one of the biggest networks in the world, high ratings can easily translate into more legitimacy in the eyes of the American public.

There is also an intangible benefit to the delay. If you’re reading this, odds are you’re a fan at heart. The people reading this article are the same people who watch hours and hours of Poker After Dark, High Stakes Poker, World Poker Tour, and probably every single hour of the World Series of Poker broadcast. With this saturation of poker programming, a new way to watch poker would just flat out be exciting for us as fans. I know that having knowledge of how the final tables play out is exponentially less exciting than when I don’t. Even if you feel on the surface this idea is gimmicky, you will almost assuredly be excited leading up to the airing of the semi-live main even final table after weeks of anticipation, media attention, and learning about these players. It’s just going to be good TV.

One of the common outcries of the naysayers has been, “What if one of the players dies in the 10 week delay?” Well, as tragic as that would be, it’s simply so unlikely that it makes an absurd argument. Have any of the main event final table players passed away within 10 weeks of the final table in the last 20 years?

Others are screaming that this will “ruin the integrity of the game.” Yes, the tourney will have a different wrinkle to it, but it would be a mistake if the WSOP was simply satisfied with the status quo and didn’t strive to make the WSOP bigger and better each year. I mean, would the WSOP really be better off if it was still at Binion’s? With only the main event televised? Without hole card cameras? At the advent of all of those changes, poker purists threw up in between shouting that the integrity of the game had been ruined, but these changes have only helped to turn poker into what it is today.

A lot of people have quickly assumed that this change was made purely out of greed. However, if you look back at the history of Jeffrey Pollack and the other “suits,” they clearly demonstrate a genuine desire to make the WSOP better for players and fans alike. They have implemented numerous suggestions from the Player’s Committee, including adding more non-hold ‘em events, adding more $10k events, shortening playing days, and changing structures of events. All of those decisions actually work in direct contradiction to what a business that was only looking out for ratings would want (i.e. more hold ‘em, cramming in more events, and faster structures). They have also demonstrated the willingness to admit their mistakes and correct them as soon as they can. Pollack himself said on the most recent media conference call “the tent clearly didn’t do what we intended it to; there will be no more tent.” He had shown this level of contrition with many of their decisions that didn’t work as planned.

This also proves that the WSOP has the ability to try things out, admit they didn’t work, and then correct them. This is another reason not to be threatened by the final table delay. The worst case scenario is that it doesn’t work, people don’t like it, and they change it back next year.

So with that in mind, why not take a shot at something that has the potential to benefit so many people? It’s good for the WSOP, it’s good for the final table players, and it’s good for the poker community – sounds like the art of progress to me.

__________________________________________________ _______

Don't be a ZOMG CHANGE BAAAAAAD donkey, please!

This person ^ had alot to say LOL. But about the wsop main event right now i have to say its an alright idea ill have to see how it plays out. But its good in the sense that u wont know who wins a month before its on tv so thats good. I do agree that 3 months is a long time to wait to finish it, i know the people at the final table are not going to forget their oppents playing style and how they were playin but people watching on tv will forget about the people at the final table by then and probaly wont care by the time it rolls around cuz from what i see theres no pros in it and pros r what people r watching for

I honestly don't get the point of it; what are they trying to accomplish by moving the final table to November?

I think its a terrible idea. Alot of things can happen in 3 months. What will they do if someone dies? I'm serious it could happen.

ESPN is airing the main event prior to the final in November. I wonder how it will effect players when they get to see their opponents hole cards and how they've played certain hands before returning to the final table?

*sigh*

First, this was talked to death months ago - do a search to find some of the previous threads.

Second, aliengenius makes a hella big bunch of good points.

Third, this entire argument has missed the point. By a loooooooong way. Here's what this issue is actually about:

It's about ESPN. ALL about ESPN.

Without ESPN, there would have been no Moneymaker effect. No poker boom. There'd be no massive influx of fish to the game and there'd be sod all sponsorship money because what's the point of putting a patch on someone's shirt if that shirt isn't going to get on TV? Field sizes would be smaller, so would prize pools, and there'd be less action in the side games too. This would be, unequivocally, Bad For Poker.

"Sod ESPN, the WPT still would've caused the boom!", I hear you saying? Maybe, but it still boils down to the same issues - the networks that televise poker have the power here. Considering what poker gets in return, most would say that's fair enough. Look what's happened to the WPT since it fell out with its broadcast partners.

So ESPN comes to the WSOP and says "Y'know, we'd really like to delay the final table by four months - we think having everyone know who wins months before the final table is televised is really hurting our ratings".

You just can't argue with them. It stands to reason that knowing the outcome is a huge ratings killer. They have all the power, because without them you'd lose sponsors, players and a big chunk of your prize pools.

So to those who say this is a stupid move, I ask you one question:

WHAT is your alternative for keeping ESPN happy?

It has its pros and cons. Pros could be studying up on your opponents, studying the game in general, getting coached, etc. Cons are again, having your opponents study up on you, and obv having to wait 3 months for millions lol. I'm not gonna make my decision right now, just as we all shouldnt. We dont know how it will turn out yet, so why come out and say it is a bad thing?

I actually really like the whole delay the final table from the point of view of a viewer. If I were playing it, I would most certainly not like it as it definitely could hurt your game. But I like that I will be able to watch the main event episodes without knowing whose gonna win - knowing whose gonna win can enable you to predict the outcome of a hand, which can be annoying. I wasn't able to enjoy the 50k horse as much as i would have because i knew scotty was gonna win.

This is not like baseball where you absolutely have to have nine players to play, they will just play the eight.

Like everybody else has said, there are some pros and cons. The biggest problem is that there are no big name pros at the final table which is what ESPN/WSOP were probably banking on, like Mike Matusow, Alan Cunningham, or even Sam Farha(ish) from previous years. Even just one big name pro would have probably made a big difference as far a promotions and money for the tournament.

Personally, I think three months is too long for my taste. Maybe a few weeks or even a month, they haven't done enough to keep my interest that much over the time span

Well, a few weeks or even a month there is no time for the proper build up. They are going to be showing all the episodes of the ME leading up to the final table then air the final table. So once again, no time for a few weeks to a month. Lets just see how ESPN handles it, I have faith in them

I liked watching the WSOP back when I was a n00b and did not know you could go online to find the results. It was so much better when I did not know who the winners where. Now it takes a lot of the excitement out of watching it when I know who is going to win.

The main even has been a side show for a while now. Why expect it to become less outrageous?

Good for poker? I guess it could be. Like other people have said, if it puts more 21 year old college kids in my cash games, I will be happy.

I sincerely doubt either Harrahs or ESPN were "banking" on there being a big-name pro at the final table.

For one thing, it's numerically unlikely - the field is too big and the pros are too few. They'd be insane to pin their ratings hopes on any big name pro making the final table.

For another, the Average Joe that ESPN is trying to get to watch the show doesn't know the difference between a pro and an amateur anyway, with a few small exceptions. At least three pros made the final table last year, but I promise you the casual viewer wouldn't have known it.

Now if Tiffany Michelle had made the final table... that would have made a difference.

Like I said in one of the other threads on this topic, what you've said here is telling - you've established that you are actually OK with a final table delay, and all we're really arguing over is its duration.

So what's the difference between it being a few weeks, a month or four months? There really isn't any, except that four months is long enough for ESPN to do the work that they want to do, and the other times aren't.

I think it's a dumb idea, but it doesn't effect me, so I don't care. Who, among the poker player are going to complain? Nine people nobody's ever heard of who are about to play for a huge payday? I don't think so.

I think it will have the desired effect, and ratings for the final table will be bigger than last year. That said, if it wasn't the biggest tournament in poker, they wouldn't be able to get away with it without losing a large chunk of players.

All the companies with a vested interest in poker's profitability (ESPN, Rio, Full Tilt, etc) should instead be spending 100% of their time and energy into fixing US legislation for/against online poker. Even B&M casinos need to realize that a lot of those youngsters walking into their poker rooms for the first time would never be there if it wasn't for the online testing grounds.

Everyone has a right to thier own opinion.I don't like the new format!!!It's all about the almighty $$ and thats fine.If I had the rights to air the show,I would make as much as I could too.Now my (***hole),opinion.Everyone knows that the WSOP is a grind to play.That being said.What if a player is getting tired,frustrated,short stacked,etc..and decides the hell with it,I'll take 9th,8th,7th, because I can't take no more or that payout is fine with me.They and the rest of the players have to wait three months.Don't like it! I know they are aware of the time of play and that the final table is going to be played later.I'm sure they were told that well ahead of time by the officials.I just think when it comes to the final table,that it should be played then and if time is up for that day.Continue play the next day,like it has been done in the past.Why let someone have the chance of studing your play for the next three months when they were about to call it quits or take a final stand at that time.Don't fix something when it's not broken.O well,thats my two cents and my (***hole)opinion.

While I'll grant that this is your opinion, there is something broken in the mind of ESPN, and that something is people knowing who wins months before they show the final table.

So I'll repeat to you the question I asked above, which nobody against the change has managed to come up with an answer for yet:

WHAT is your alternative for keeping ESPN happy?

There have been some outstanding points made in this thread. There are good reasons for this change to be made and some not-so-good reasons.

I think that part of the reason is that people have never heard of a tournament with a multi-month break near the end, or have they?!

Maybe we need to think of what we call "The Main Event" as a sattelite to the "The Final Showdown" (or some other slick marketable name).

If you think about it in those terms, maybe it's not so bad. The only difference is that you start with the chips that you had. That preserves everyone's relative momentum somewhat. Everyone comes to the final table rested. Everyone comes to the final table better prepared, perhaps. It's not better. It's not worse. It's just different.

I just hope the officials are on the lookout for collusion between players because there is always a risk of private deal-making before the final table takes place.

Wouldn't it be funny if all nine players decided to make a deal and not play the final table? That would really frost ESPN!

Um, I dont care how much of a grind it is, a person would have to be retarded not to continue and play for millions

Some very good points from both sides. I've changed my stance a little on the delay for the final nine. Oz makes the most legitimate call in my opinion that it's all about ESPN and the tournament has no choice but to make the network happy lest they don't televise the event. Ultimately it's a decent attempt to grab ratings. I have a feeling though that this format will miss the ratings mark and the tourney will probably go back to the original format in a year or two.

At first all I could see was the cons of extending this out 4 months. But now I dont see a damn thing wrong with it. What was I thinking?????/

"One of the common outcries of the naysayers has been, “What if one of the players dies in the 10 week delay?” Well, as tragic as that would be, it’s simply so unlikely that it makes an absurd argument. Have any of the main event final table players passed away within 10 weeks of the final table in the last 20 years?"


LOL I had to laugh at this. We play poker. How many bad beat tales do you have? To say this is really stupid. What makes them think it won't happen?

As a person that already likes poker, my honest response is, "who cares? can it really effect you as much as you think?"

I don't see it changing that much. If I was going to watch a tournament for the skill level, this years mixed hold'em tournament and HORSE tourney (minus the drunkin Scotty) had better play and final tables anyway.

I really have not seen that much build up and I honestly don't expect that many people that were not poker fans to watch it just because they delayed the final table. So if it can't hurt, why not give it a try?

If they delayed the curling world championship I probably still wouldn't watch it, even if they promoted the hell out of it.

I don't know any of the pros (let alone care about amateurs), I wouldn't find it very exciting to watch, I'm not a big enough fan to be persuaded by build up and promotion to watch it, and I don't understand all the strategies and underpinnings of the game (if there are that many).

This final table will be a group of no names from what I saw, and it has the possibility to prove the cynical people of the world right. "See, you said poker was a game of skill, and yet these are all no-name amateurs sitting at the final table of the biggest tournament in the world! It's all luck!" they could argue. (My response, of course, would be 'play me')

And on the other hand you have the first time watchers who think, "hmmm. so there are a bunch of amatuers that got lucky enough/good enough to make it to the last 9 players....now they're going to be rich....I could do that/they're just like me!" Enter said fish to my tables in AC and on Pokerstars.


In my opinion the effect of this change will seem about as important as this thread is in 4 months. The boom happened back when Moneymaker won. We can still add players, but nowhere near that effect. Prove me wrong, though, and I honestly wouldn't be happier as a fan and player of the game.