Entry fee of WSOP Main Event

Do you think they'll increase the entry fee to wsop. Nowadays, anyone can join main event if they just have 10k. Back then, 10k was a lot before economy in US inflated. That's why not many people joined and when people, it was mostly poker players who played seriously. Now, you see too many donks and spoiled rich kids joining main event. I honestly think raising entry fee will reduce donks and random people who are seeking to hit the lottery. I read about this in Chris Ferguson's forum on full tilt. What do you guys think? Do you think they'll raise the entry fee? Do you think it's better to raise the entry fee?

I think a lot of "pros" would like to see an increase for exactly the reasons stated. The field would likely be thinned, and it would be more likely that "name" players make the final table and win the event, much like the current $50,000 HORSE tournament.

However, it really will come down to is the amount of money the casino makes from running the tourny. I'm not exactly sure how the buy-in + fee breaks down at the ME, I'm going to look for that now. Okay, currently 4.2% is withheld for entry fees, and 1.8% held for tournament staff. So Harrah's makes $420 per person currently. Last year there were 6,358 entrants, making $2,670,360.

If they believe they can increase that amount by raising the buy-in, then I believe it will happen. If however they deem that a larger buy-in would not increase their take, they will keep the entry fee right where it is.

Personally, I'd support the bigger buy-in, I kind of lost interest with the WSOP as of late.

I think the increase in players has more to do with the tremendous gain in popularity that poker especially NLHE has received. In the last 10 years poker as become exponentially more popular, and I think that trend will continue. Poker is everywhere you look, which makes more people want to play. You could see less people in the main event with an increased buy in, but with how popular poker has become, its not likely that you won't see the same type of players that have flooded to the event the past few years.

I would not support a raise in entry. 10K is already giant. I would like to play some day and its not a remote poss if its over 10

I dunno. As much as 10k isnt really an obstacle for a well rolled amateur, I think that one massive tournament per year is fine. Most of the other tourneys that the pros play are very exclusive. One a year filled with no names shouldnt be a big deal. As much as odds now are that a random will win it just due to normal variance, its alright to give us mortals one major opportunity to play well (and inevitably get lucky) to win huge money.

pokerlovesme said:

Now, you see too many donks and spoiled rich kids joining main event.

Click to expand...

I think it'll be left exactly as it is, for exactly this reason - they want the donks, the spoiled rich kids, the retirees with too much time on their hands and as many other people as they can cram in to play the Main Event.

The Main Event isn't just any poker tournament - it's the poker tournament. It's the biggest tournament in the world, with the biggest prize pool and the most players. Harrah's would be mad to do anything that compromises that, including raising the price.

I'm certain they don't care what the standard of play is like as long as it remains the biggest tournament in the world.

The Main Event is a circus for the masses and the media. Plain and simple. The pros that care about the "quality" of play (assuming that's even a valid argument - and I have my reservations on that point) have the $50K HORSE and various other high buy-in events to keep them amused.

Changing the main event would be a huge mistake. It's got the reputation for being the biggest tournament of the year that is accessible to amateurs. Changing that by raising the buy-in would probably mean a decline in viewers on TV, which would be pretty bad for poker in general.

Event #2 this year is a $40K buy-in NLHE tournament. This gives us the best of both worlds - a chance to see a NLHE tourney catered to the pros and the main event left untouched for anybody to win.

I think that this price is already enough expensive.
First, I think that even if it was 100000$, you still may find bad people in there. Have you any idea of how many millionaires there are in world? So as poker has become more and more famous with TV, I think there will be more and more rich people that pay the WSOP fee.
And my second point is that I think it's a very good point that basically anyone can pay the fee, join and win the WSOP (with a good dose of luck of course).
I don't think closing the WSOP doors to the majority is a good idea, and I don't expect it

thirteenlisk said:

Event #2 this year is a $40K buy-in NLHE tournament. This gives us the best of both worlds - a chance to see a NLHE tourney catered to the pros and the main event left untouched for anybody to win.

Click to expand...

I concur.

main event

I believe that the basic logic of this post is correct. It's not the same tournament as it used to be. Raising the buy-in would help keep the integrity of the game. However, what is the total boost to the Las Vegas economy from taxi drivers to hotel operators and everybody inbetween. Plus the media coverage around the world. Hell it might do them good to make a 5000 dollar tournament the month prior and call it the warm up or something and keep the thing rolling. I bet they probably already have that.

but to the player that cares about who the champion of the year is, 25,000, 50,000, not even 100,000 is going to keep them from playing in it.

Of course this also raises the question of, does anybody want the tournament to be what it used to be? There is definitely more money and more fame to go around now.

I think that the bad economy will make poker even more popular as the draw of the big money will be more of a dream to people.

pokerlovesme said:

Do you think they'll increase the entry fee to wsop. Nowadays, anyone can join main event if they just have 10k. Back then, 10k was a lot before economy in US inflated. That's why not many people joined and when people, it was mostly poker players who played seriously. Now, you see too many donks and spoiled rich kids joining main event. I honestly think raising entry fee will reduce donks and random people who are seeking to hit the lottery. I read about this in Chris Ferguson's forum on full tilt. What do you guys think? Do you think they'll raise the entry fee? Do you think it's better to raise the entry fee?

Click to expand...

NO! They wont, that is why they have other bigger buy-in events. Plus it has ALWAYS been $10,000, why change? Why complain? The more players the bigger the prize pools. It is just as much serious players today as it was in 89, the only difference is today more people play poker than back in 89.

Look at it this way, would you rather play in a $10,000 main even with 300 and have a 3M prize pool with a first place of maybe 1M. Or have 5000 people with a prize pool of 50M and your top prize being over 5M.... You take your pick. If you don't think you can beat out 5000 people, then you can't beat 300.
Really you can't call the guy that spent his last 2 years saving $500/month to get $10,000 or the guy that grinds out everyday at the tables and get his entry a donk.
Plus with the economy today, why would you do something like that?

With internet poker satelites I think even raising the buy in,they will still end up with more amatuers than they would want.I personally like the Idea that anyone has a chance to be the world champion.It adds alot of excitement to know that you can turn $40 or whatever into several millions.Keep the buy in the same and let the best man win.

jimmy jax said:

Of course this also raises the question of, does anybody want the tournament to be what it used to be? There is definitely more money and more fame to go around now.

Click to expand...

Harrah's certainly doesn't. Nor does ESPN. Nobody would make any money off it.

Nobody else's opinions matter if neither of those two want it to happen.

OzExorcist said:

Harrah's certainly doesn't. Nor does ESPN. Nobody would make any money off it.

Nobody else's opinions matter if neither of those two want it to happen.

Click to expand...

^^^ Exactly right. It'$ all about the monie$ - very little to do with what i$ good for poker. ...

think about it. more ppl playin the bigger the prize pool. bigger prize pool means if u get on the final table or 1st ur lookin at a very sweet pay out!
Probs filled with donk n rich kids but ur gonna find that everywhere in a NL Hold'em game bcos of it's increasing popularity.

w00p! I wanna play in the WSOP =P

nevadanick said:

^^^ Exactly right. It'$ all about the monie$ - very little to do with what i$ good for poker. ...

Click to expand...

To be fair, they seem pretty interested in doing what's best for poker throughout the rest of the series. They don't always get it right (ditching rebuys in 2009, for example) but they do try.

The Main Event is just so different to everything else at the WSOP, and is so integral to the success of the entire series, that they need to treat it differently. Whether I like it or not, I can see where they're coming from.

I think it is great for poker to know that anyone with a clue about the game (and $10000 of course) has the opportunity to go toe-to-toe with the best in the game. Its like a baseball fan getting a chance to take batting practice against a star pitcher, or pitching to a star hitter.

As for raising the buy-in, there will be people who lack the skills regardless of the price, mainly for the reason I stated above.

In a deep stacked multi-day tournament, I don't know why you would want to scare donks away. They'd be precisely who I want want at my table throughout the tournament. I'd rather have a table of unskilled opponents than sit next to Ivey, Dwan, Hansen, etc.

I'd like for them to keep it down because i'd love to play but 10k is already to much for me..

After the suscess last year of not only the $40,000 buy-in but also the $1000 dollar buy-in more people than ever will be playing in the WSOP. The main event is what it is-period. They will not change that, nor do I think they should. This year they have added more lower buys-ins than ever before. Every weekend there will be a $1000 buy-in. The more people who have a chance to play in a event(donks or not) the better I think it is for poker. I can see the $40,000 event getting bigger but not like the main event. There are not to many major events in the world were the average person has a chance to compete and dream. This is the Main Events greatest draw.

thirteenlisk said:

Changing the main event would be a huge mistake. It's got the reputation for being the biggest tournament of the year that is accessible to amateurs. Changing that by raising the buy-in would probably mean a decline in viewers on TV, which would be pretty bad for poker in general.

Click to expand...

Viewership is already starting to fade, hence the fact that they only showed 3 or 4 events on T.V. this year compared to about 15 different events a few years ago including some circuit events. As I have said in previous post T.V. has both helped poker and hurt it. It helped get more people playing it, but when people watch and they only show big hands and new people to the game see guys winning big pots with 4 7 off or K 4 suited they think that playing every hand no matter the cards is the proper way to play, when in fact they don't see that same guy folding his last 25 hands and on that particular hand was the BB and got a discount or was trying to make a move.

londonfog66 said:

In a deep stacked multi-day tournament, I don't know why you would want to scare donks away. They'd be precisely who I want want at my table throughout the tournament. I'd rather have a table of unskilled opponents than sit next to Ivey, Dwan, Hansen, etc.

Click to expand...

I disagree you can get top pros to fold decent hands when you may try a bluff whereas a unskilled player will call you down with bottom pair when you have nothing. Now granted the top pro could outplay you more but its harder to outplay a unskilled player unless you have the nuts.

The main event is just a crap shoot where even a pro has to run good to get far(Ivey, Farha etc) and an amateur has to run amazing(Moon, Yang etc) to get to the end. Kinda boring, even though ill still watch it. The 50k HORSE is the real deal. I heard Daniel Negreanu say they're changing the final table of the 50k HORSE to be NLHE so that it can be aired on TV. That will be cool if they show the whole tourney. But as good as it gets, watchin tournament poker on tv is like watchin highlight reels of sports games, not that good.

I think that $10,000 is perfect you raise it more than less players will join and the pot size will decrease significantly.

there is alot of pro and cons for this...one is that the prize money will me more and more paid places, but people who do want to go and play may not have the money to cover for it. I say just keep it at 10k

And as pointed out, a lot of pros claim that the $50k buyin horse event determines the true champion of poker. Let us amateurs have a shot at besting a ridiculous field of fish, donks, pros, trustfund babies, men in costumes, women in costumes, poker dealers, and gambling addicts in a ridiculous eyes on the prize event for several mil.

Harrah's makes money from showing it on TV, as does ESPN. They are not at a loss for income, I assure you. However, if they feel they can raise the cost in a way to make more money, rest assured they would (as it would be expected from a successful business) - however they run out the people who set aside exactly $10k for the event, and other people who say that it was a change not needed and refuse to play out of spite.