WSOP Vs US Open

Since Trump made the US Open a big deal....it's an "open" right? Shouldn't the World series be only pros with amatuer qualifiers...not an open? It's getting out of hand trying to win the World series with 8k people and most of them having amatuer status. It's no different from every other tournament when it shouldn't be. 10k was the reason people didn't enter before..but now with inflation...it's nothing. I say raise that up to 50k.

I agree. 2 out of the last 3 winners (Varkonyi and Moneymaker) haven't done anything since. Raymer is the only guy that followed up with anything and that was amazing what he did in back to back years. We will have to see what Hachem does but I wouldn't bet on him. The main event needs to get back to the prestigous title that it was.

Haven't they created a pros-only tour of some sort? I thought I heard something about that recently. I think it's very cool that the WSOP is accessible to the masses, so to speak. Take that dream away and poker wouldn't be nearly as exciting for the majority of us. Playing day to day is fine, but envisioning someday making it to "the big one" is even better.

By the way, I love your "Phil brushing his teeth" avatar.

Raising the buy-in won't affect much. Poker sites are still going to have satellites, they'll just raise their buy-ins or increase the amount of people they have in them... or even make you go through numerous qualifiers with unheard of rebuy and add-on amounts.

I agree with the idea of having the buy in raised for the Main Event. If you had the buy in a $25 000 like the Championship event at at the WPT then you could have a larger prize pool and it will be less competitors probably with the larger buy in. As far as the Online poker satellites, you will still cut down the number of players in the final event because there is more money the sites have to dish out per entrant and there would probalbly be a few less satellite tournys that fill out the appropriate amount of money to send someone to the tourny. Also, if there was a $25 000 buy in for the main event then the buy in for the satellite tournys would have to be $1000 plus vig, which i think wouldnt be too attractive to most players.

Well keep in mind they made the HORSE tourney this year a 50K buy in. Doyle used to consider the HORSE winner the true Poker Champ anyway, since you have to play all of the games.

But the Main Event is really getting silly. Amateurs aside, the fact that the tournament is stretched out over 2 whole weeks is crazy. It's almost as much a test of mental endurance and luck as it is skill. Think how many coin flips the winner is going to have to survive this year. It'll be more than the 10-12 that Raymer talked about when he won.

Does this draw back to the discussion of poker being a game or a sport? An amatuer has won the WSOP, but it's very unlikely a golfer with only a year or two of experience will win the Open. Any thoughts?

It would be (and) was very unlikely for an amatuer to win the WSOP, If they put in place a system in which you had to apply for membership and meet certain qaulifications to apply, like every other "sport" has, then we wouldn't have this problem. Amateurs would be able to qualify for the main event through satellites not just be able to show up and play. That's why I say raise it up to 50k or get some qualification regulations in place. Whether it's a sport or not really doesn't matter IMO, either way, they need something from having this get way out of hand.

"Amateur" is a fuzzy concept in poker.

...my point exactly.

Let me expand on that ridiculously short post I made:

I won't try to define what a "sport" is here, because that argument could go on forever, but let's just assume that poker is a sport and move from there.

The reason that "amateur" is such a fuzzy concept in poker is that poker, unlike most other sports, is a game where everyone wins or loses money. I can play golf for 30 years and not win a single dime off of it. I can play floor hockey with coworkers, no money involved. For all traditional sports, it's specifically making money off of it that defines a professional; someone who earns a living off of the sport. But not so with poker; there are hundreds of thousands of winners in poker, and they all make money. The majority, however, don't make enough money off of poker that they could realistically live off of it, so perhaps we could draw the line for a professional as someone who lives off of his poker earnings alone. That seems decently fair to me.

Looking over the money I win, it's plausible that I could live off of poker if I played 8 hours a day. I'd probably have enough to pay rent and groceries and maybe also enough to save up for the inevitable rainy days. I'm sure there are many like me who could, in theory, live off of it, but they simply make more money off of their day jobs than they would playing poker and/or they don't really want that kind of life. But I could. I could play 2000 hands of $2/$4 limit hold 'em a day, and with a sustained win-rate of 2BB/100, that would net me $160 a day on average, or $3200 a month. Less than I make at my dayjob, but fully live-able. But a guy grinding out $2/$4 tables usually doesn't fit into people's conception of "a pro." But, by most reasonable definitions, he would be.

Okay, so with that in mind, let's look at the perceived problem with the WSOP main event:

With 8,000 people entering the tournament, the likelyhood of any individual player to win is small. For the very experienced players, it's maybe 800-to-1, for the really bad players, it may be 80,000-to-1. But with the sheer number of "amateurs", whatever that means, entering the tournament, they collectively have a big chance of one of them winning, due to sheer numbers. And this is the perceived problem. But why is it a problem?

I think the problem lies in the prestige that this event brings with it. It is, or at the very least was, the "creme de la creme" of poker tournaments, The Big One, the one everyone wants to win to prove themselves. With huge number of people joining up, some of the luster seems to fade since it's simply so likely that someone we've never heard of takes home first prize. But is this really a problem? Does it matter? I don't think it does. There are plenty of tournaments for "the pros", and here I mean the established tournament players, Dan Harrington, Phil Ivey, etc., to win that they will still be recognized for their skill. So if we need heroes, we will still know where to find them. And if some lucky schmuck we've never heard of goes and wins $10,000,000 at the WSOP main event, congratulations!

I think the perceived problems boil down to how we want the "world champion" to be someone we can truly believe to be one of the most skilled players around, the 99th percentile, but the Main Event doesn't really work that way anymore. Perhaps we, the poker community, need to re-evaluate how we identify our champions and live with the fact that the WSOP ME nowadays is simply the biggest tournament with the biggest prize, and not a trophy in absolute skill.

Regards,
Fredrik

PokerStars. According to Greg Raymer, Chris Moneymaker played up to $40/$80 limit games live before he won the WSOP, for what it's worth. I think a lot of people have an idea of him being a $.25/$.50 PokerStars donk who miraculously kept going all-in with 7-2o and against all the odds picking up the title. I don't think that's really fair.

I really don't care to mention everything that's wrong with you're article up there. I think your perceptions of a few things are slightly off...but here's a few ideas:

1. The World series SHOULD be about skill...It has always been...that was the major point of making this thread. If you're a fan, sure the money's nice, but you want that title. . . You were the best, the most skillfull. Nobody wants to watch professionals get boobed out of a major championship by amatuers who get lucky...it would be like going to the World Series of Baseball with 1 team being the Yankees and the other being a minor league team who didn't even play in the league or qualify for the tournament...but yet they win it. How deserving is that? Who will care when year after year some boob we've never heard of wins the WSOP at a table full of nobodys. Not I. I'll be gunning for someone like Lederer or Ivey everytime...and turn it off after the last 1 I know is gone by the end of the 1st week...

People do care who wins...they have their favorites ...and when NO ONE they know is at the final table...then who cares! Are people going to watch ESPN or care about the world series if they're not in it and no one they know is at the final table? ESPN can't write that well IMO. good luck. They'll have to pull something out of their hat except for the usual "Pedro put his house on the line to play today"..or "His family took their vacation to the WSOP in their trailer"....the same boring story lines will get old real fast.

....is it a good idea to stretch the WSOP, 1 tournament, over a 2-3 week period? looool It's ridiculous!

I really think you should, because I have no idea what you're disagreeing with. The rest of your post went on to state what you think is messed up about the WSOP, which to me looks like what I said people perceive to be the problem:

If I was factually incorrect in anything I said, point it out. If you don't feel the same way I do (as in, I don't really care how many people enter the WSOP), then that's fine too. But since you said I was wrong about a bunch of things, I want to know which ones.

The main problem with this is poker is inherently largely luck-based in the short run. If you want the WSoP to be a true judge of skill then each event would have to be run over, hmm, about 10 years.

Err, oops!

What you're saying is loosely akin to someone saying "Tennis games should be played over 20 sets because 5 sets is too little and the best players might lose", or "Baseball is too luck-based, matches shouls have 300 innings to make sure the best team always wins". Doesn't that sound ridiculous?

Err, you obviously had your head in the sand around about the time Moneymaker won the WSoP, considering that an "Average Joe" winning caused a huge boom in the poker industry.

Yes, it may get repetitive, but the powers that be will always find stories behind the players. Besides, I for one find the "anyone can win" nature far more exciting than, hmm, Tiger Woods winning every golf tourney he entered back in his heyday, or Australia winning every cricket match they play etc etc.

On a side note, the $50k (I think) HORSE tourney would be a far better event to use at the WSoP in crowning the 'world champion'.

Nooo. You need standards for Pro status that would reduce the number of players entering.....or raise the entrance fee. . . Which I already stated.


...? ....People cared who won BECAUSE it was the average joe. Now that he's conquered the world by winning with $50...there's no big surprise when it happens again. Did you care when Hachem won? I know I didn't...Actually I wanted him to loose to anyone, since he had his soccer-esque cheering section ...


no. I'm saying you have to set standards. You can't just keep extending the tournament because the WHOLE WORLD enters. I'm not favoring either player in doing this. . .

Awww...it's ok.... Whether poker is a sport or not is irrelevant. You're article up there, went on and on stating what we already knew.

No offense. But I summed that up in the first post of the thread with this: It's getting out of hand trying to win the World series with 8k people and most of them having amatuer status. It's no different from every other tournament when it shouldn't be. Then in later posts I further explained myself. .I'm not trying to upset anyone. . .It was all in serious good fun. . . I could have replied nicer...but what fun would have that been? lol

The thing is, what makes donks get into poker is the feeling that because anyone could win the WSoP, why shouldn't it be them? You take that away from the WSoP and poker's popularity with regard to people playing it will plummet, especially among the really bad players who we all want at our tables.

No. Would I care if Hellmuth won? Not really. Ivey? Nah. My best mate Steve? Yeah, probably.

But if you don't, then even if you only enter pros luck is still going to be a huge deciding factor. Thus, complaining about luck in the WSoP is futile.

Very good point. We need a Pro membership that would guarantee entry. . . then you can still have a limited number of satellites, so you still have the "anyone can be the World Champ" factor.

...People playing poker would rightfully decrease because EVERYONE's playing it! How can it increase! And, they shouldn't have a realistic shot at winning the tournament in the first place. An amatuer winning should be a long shot...What does it matter if less people play it anyway? lol I don't see a big problem with this.

Right. But no one else will...

eh. With Pros and a min. amount of amatuer entrants it would waiver greatly to the skill side...opposed to what it is now.

Luck?! Poker is All about SKillz baby!

Why?

I take it, you believe poker is ALL about luck....right? Was it luck that Stu Ungar or Chan repeated...?


Trying to dodge 7k people who'll go all-in at any time with nothing, and win it, WILL be luck. Phil and his tooth brush can back me on that one!

Strawman. Not even a point for trying. Let's try again:

Why would making the tournament smaller, with only "high ranked players" allowed to enter, make it more of a skill competition?

I meant less people playing poker in general, not just the WSoP. I hope you can see what the problem with this is.

I think you just answered your own question . strawman...?


I know you meant in general...I CAN see a problem with this. . .Not a good one though. What is it...? More or less people having fun gambling makes little difference in the world IMO.

If this was referring to me, no, I did not. Let me try this:

If Phil Ivey plays my 11 year old niece, is he more or less likely to win than if he plays Dan Harrington? In which of the two competitions is skill the more determining factor?

Google "logical fallacies" and "strawman".

na. that's alright. . .I'm not sure what you meant...

Ummmm. yes!?

To use the baseball World Series example and taking it to the outcome you suggested, then the Yankees with their insane bankroll and allstar lineup should win the world series every single year. What do you think that would do to the sport? Or, the 1980 US hockey team should have lost the gold medal game in the olympics. They were amateurs playing against pros, so they shouldn't have won, or even been alowed to play. Nobody remembers them anyways, heck nobody remembers Moneymaker winning the WSOP either, so it's obviously bad for the sport as a whole.

There will always be pros at the final table, let me have my underdog Joe Schmuck who got lucky in a satellite, he's the one I'll be rooting for.

Create and elevate competition and rivalries? I don't see baseball having a hard time year after year keeping the league going...

That was sorta the idea behind googling the expression.

Yes.

Because Phil Ivey is a lot more skilled than my niece. She has a very small chance of beating him at poker.

However, between Ivey and Harrington, the skill levels are much more even... In fact, between Harrington and Ivey it may be a cointoss as to who wins.

If you match up Harrington and Ivey, you've reduced poker to a cointoss. To create a strawman of my own:

Why would you want the WSOP to be only about luck?

Strawmen are fun!

Na. I meant. I'm not going to . That's alright. I think it was some sort of insult about my argument having no backing..but...as you can tell....I don't really care...lol
I'd rather have it a cointoss among pros than have it truly about luck with amateurs. What are the 7k amatuers bringing to the competition but luck?


Isn't every major sporting competition, in fact, a cointoss among Pros? I don't see this as a problem.

No, not an insult.

Prey for the skilled players.

I don't see the WSOP being the world's largest tournament as a problem, either. The players who are recognized as the world's finest get their prestige from other places.

...right now it isn't....but what happens when you have 50k over 4 weeks? At what point do you do something about it? Never? I guess Harrah's would have no problem with it either...



...I assumed it was an insult....but alright..its all good. lol er....now I'll have to look it up...

I trust the competition to be self-regulating. If 50k people want to sign up - let them.

You've honestly persuaded me to realize that this isn't such a bad thing...sorry to anyone who might have viewed my comments as malicious. . It was just for the sake of conversation. . .


It's just a shame that Hellmuth probably won't repeat . . . olo!

I think both Chris and I have thick enough skin not to have had our feelings hurt. It's all good.