Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
Poker is a self-supporting event because entrants actually pay entry fees to play unlike sporting events where players are paid outrageous, unjustifiable salaries that then need to be recouped so the franchise can afford their golden children and remain profitable (so they really need TV). Not to mention that there are about 5326234 poker events on TV everyday, so it's not exactly going away or going to be forgotten about anytime soon. So to corrupt the structure of an event solely for the purpose of letting some pros freeroll into it is ridiculous. If the pros and others really believe that it is the truest testament to the "best" player, then they should be willing to put up the money for the event because they believe they fit that description. The advertisement or not of this one event will not kill poker; it won't even scratch the surface.
And why just the 50k event? To the best of my knowledge, none of the other HORSE events had a NLHE final table, did they? If they were not pure HORSE to the end then I'll recant my next statement: If all of the other HORSE events were pure to the end, then DN is FOS because his motives become very clear. He wants a FR into the largest HORSE event with a maximized prizepool; only way to accomplish that is to corrupt the event structure at the very end and get it on TV.
And notice no one is really talking about the mixed game events. There are two this year (one is new) that includes NLHE in the mix of other games. They didn't make the final tables of those pure NLHE either, did they? Not as far as I know. So again, this comes down to only being about the largest buy-in event and playing it for free.
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
H.O.R.S.E. (Event 21) ($3k entry)
H.O.R.S.E. (Event 31) ($1.5k entry)
And also (not HORSE):
World Championship Mixed Event (Event 12)($10k entry)
Mixed Event (Event 42)($2.5k entry)
edit: Meh, you deleted your question while I was looking up the events.
zachvac
Legend
Silver Level
lol yeah didn't even realize there were other events deleted my post after I saw there were.
That said that kinda proves the point though. I probably know more about the wsop than most casual observers and I didn't even realize there was more than 1 HORSE event. Why would you have more respect for his pov if he wanted all the HORSE events like that? He's specifically said he wants it just because this one should be a prestigious event ie different than the others. I see your point about purity but what format the other ones follow is kinda irrelevant just because his point has nothing to do with purity. He wants it to generate more publicity, which helps every single person in the poker world other than the high-stakes HORSE players who suck at nlhe. Even most HORSE players probably benefit more from the more dead money that'd come in than the slight edge they'd lose should they make the final table and have to play nlhe.
Also the point about poker not needing tv is way way off. Before Moneymaker look at the state of poker. All of a sudden it gets on TV and the games get easier and it's super-popular. Casual people watching = more money into the poker economy = good for every single poker player whether they be playing in the 50k HORSE or whether they're grinding micros online or in a casino.
That said that kinda proves the point though. I probably know more about the wsop than most casual observers and I didn't even realize there was more than 1 HORSE event. Why would you have more respect for his pov if he wanted all the HORSE events like that? He's specifically said he wants it just because this one should be a prestigious event ie different than the others. I see your point about purity but what format the other ones follow is kinda irrelevant just because his point has nothing to do with purity. He wants it to generate more publicity, which helps every single person in the poker world other than the high-stakes HORSE players who suck at nlhe. Even most HORSE players probably benefit more from the more dead money that'd come in than the slight edge they'd lose should they make the final table and have to play nlhe.
Also the point about poker not needing tv is way way off. Before Moneymaker look at the state of poker. All of a sudden it gets on TV and the games get easier and it's super-popular. Casual people watching = more money into the poker economy = good for every single poker player whether they be playing in the 50k HORSE or whether they're grinding micros online or in a casino.
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
I probably know much less about the WSOP than most people, but I did know they have multiple HORSE events. I don't think knowing/not knowing about an event in the WSOP is exactly case in point.
Well I don't know that I'd have more respect for his POV if he was arguing for all the events; I'd still think it was just as flawed. But I also wouldn't say he was FOS about his motives. The fact he only wants the one HORSE event to be corrupted speaks directly to his motives and it isn't about the advancement of poker/HORSE by getting on TV. Poker advancement due to being on TV is actually just a by-product of his true motives which is for certain folks to FR into the event because it's a $50k entry tournament on TV and they can get his sponsor pay for. I can pretty much guarantee that DN wouldn't have said a single thing about the $50k HORSE at all if sponsors were going to pay entry fees even without being on TV.
Help me understand how changing the FT table of a HORSE event to NLHE makes it more prestigious. In theory (based on this events design), the FT should be the best HORSE players, so why not let the best HORSE player win it and be known as the the best. DN says he thinks he plays all the games very well, but I don't think anyone here would argue that DN plays NLHE better than any of those limit games. So from his perspective, making the FT greatly influences his chances of winning since while he can play the other games well he likely crushes a lot of those limit holdem players that have to play NLHE at the final table. That also speaks to his motive. This event is geared specifically to eliminate most chances of a amateur player making the final table. So then that means the FT will be made up of some pretty skilled HORSE players. If I was DN, I too would want the FT to be changed to NLHE where I could most likely be the best NLHE player at the table and easily finish at the top or win it.
I did mention this earlier. Part of my issue here is actually what it is called. The event is H.O.R.S.E. That means it is those five limit games played in that order. No where in that game is there NLHE. So make an event called something else like "Prestigious All-Around Poker Champion Event" where the game is a HORSE format until FT and FT is NLHE. If they do that then I would drop my argument because that is at least reasonable. When they asked for the event they said they wanted it to be HORSE and $50k, so that is what they got and what it should be...$50k entry and HORSE to the end.
I think you're misinterpreting what I said a little (or maybe I didnt' say it well). Poker is, in fact, a self-supporting thing; that's not debatable. Being on TV does not change the fact that an entry fee in paid for every person in the event (being on TV may change who pays that fee, but that's part of the blog whine discussion). Yes, poker did need the kick start of TV to gain the popularity it did. And having it on TV does continue to help its popularity (though with the market saturation for the last several years I think the incremental value is pretty debatable). But I guess my point was that not having this one event on TV will not break poker at all. Not in any conceivable way would it take a hit because the $50k HORSE* (*With HLHE FT) wasn't broadcast. Not broadcasting simply means the entrants all have to pay to play. If it's about prestige of winning and being known as the best (especially among those that know you and actually care about such things), then being recorded and put on TV has nothing to do with that. Winning the event carries the prestige alone. Being broadcast simply spreads the news before other mediums (well except for twitter maybe
). 
MrMuckets
Legend
Silver Level
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
Yeah, more or less.So then your saying the arguments laid out by DN are a bunch of malarkey
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
I really dont see it like that.
I think that the 50K horse tournament represents the highest level of poker skill, but NLHE is what the public want to see.
By changing the format such that NLHE is played on the FT, the 50K horse champion can be crowned as the years greatest poker player.
Without the TV coverage, the event loses some prestige and its winners miss out on the chance of some mainstram celeberaty status.
Granted DN is a great NLHE player, but to get to the FT he must excel at HORSE.
I just see the inclusion of NLHE on the FT as an extra layer of skill which the players must demonstrate.
I don't see a flaw in not having NLHE on the FT of all HORSE events as they wouldn't be televised anyway, much as the smaller NLHE events aren't either.
I really see it as the ultimate test of a poker player by including NLHE on the FT.
zachvac
Legend
Silver Level
Easy, being on TV and popular is more prestigious.
Here's where I believe you're wrong or at least not seeing the full picture. How is poker self-supporting? First you have all the people who make money from the game and play it for money. Then you have recreational players who make it possible for those people to make money. Without the recreational players poker dies. It doesn't support itself because no one wants to play it anymore. It would be just like chess for money. So the way to keep it self-supporting is to keep pumping in recreational players with their dead money. No TV and what incentive does someone have to put up 50k to play in a game they have no edge? Again it'd be like if there were a world series of chess where you pay 50k to play against a grandmaster. Why would you do it unless you knew you had the advantage? Out of the fun of chess? Now change it to being on TV and knowing if you get lucky you could tell all your friends about it and they'd see in the media and all that. All of a sudden it's a lot more appealing to them. So that's part of it being self-supporting, is people being willing to pay 50k for an event they are not +ev in. If they weren't the game would die, pure and simple.
But I guess my point was that not having this one event on TV will not break poker at all. Not in any conceivable way would it take a hit because the $50k HORSE* (*With HLHE FT) wasn't broadcast. Not broadcasting simply means the entrants all have to pay to play. If it's about prestige of winning and being known as the best (especially among those that know you and actually care about such things), then being recorded and put on TV has nothing to do with that. Winning the event carries the prestige alone. Being broadcast simply spreads the news before other mediums (well except for twitter maybe
Here's the problem. Anyone with any knowledge of poker at all knows there's a ton of luck in tournaments. The winner of the HORSE event is never regarded as the best HORSE player. In fact ask people who don't play poker how much a bracelet means and I'm guessing they think it means a hell of a lot more than someone who does play thinks it does. The prestige is in the air time. All the casual gamblers seeing you on TV and thinking you must be the best. Case in point Allen Cunningham was the best player at the final table a few years ago for the WSOP ME hands down imo. Yet Jamie Gold won the thing. If it were not on TV Gold wouldn't even be known we'd think "wow what a luckbox we'll never see him again". But because of TV now everyone knows him. The prestige of the event in it being on TV and heavily advertised is why Jamie Gold is famous.
Here's a good example, how many people in the US know who won the world cup for soccer last year? How many know who won the Little League World Series? How many know who won the D3 college world series? My guess is about a million times more know who won the 2nd than know the 1st or 3rd even though it's the least prestegious event on its merits. But it's on espn and the other 2 are not (or if the world cup is it's not nearly as publicized). Take nlhe out of the final table of HORSE and it turns into something like the D3 world series. All the hard-core poker players will know who won and stuff but there's no fame involved while if it is changed to nlhe and televised it could quite possibly be that the winner is more highly regarded by the casual poker audience than the winner of the ME.
I wasn't saying poker would take a hit with the HORSE event not being televised, I said the HORSE event would take a hit. In a few years it'd be like the WSOP used to be, 10 people playing for the bracelet because no one wants to play in a field full of really really solid pros other than the really really solid pros themselves and there are no fish to increase the prize pool.
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
^^^
FYP
Though really if they want it to be the best overall then they should have it be a $50k 8-game event to represent all skillsets.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
^^^
FYP
Though really if they want it to be the best overall then they should have it be a $50k 8-game event to represent all skillsets.
An 8 game event would be awesome!
Even on that, I think that the FT would be better as NLHE because of the appeal the game has with the general public.
But yes, an 8 game event would be much better.
As NLHE is one of those 8 games, I would guess players would have less of an issue with the single game FT.
tpb221
Chasing Gutshots
Silver Level
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
Ah, but then the event could be aired without changing the FT to NLHE. So by your argument, the event could be kept pure and aired as is since it is the act of appearing on TV that makes it more prestigious as the winner would in fact be more popular and well known than if it didn't air at all.
In the context of my earlier reply, poker is inherently a self-supporting game irrespective of how many people play the game. The fact that the entire prizepool is supplied by the entrants (including the fees and withholdings that are profits to the event host) makes it self-sustaining. In other events such as pro sports, the players don't show up on game day and pay to play. Instead they show up and get paid disproportional salaries to play. Those salaries must come from somewhere as those sports and such are not self-sustaining in terms of money. If an event is $1500 to buy in, then it is $1500 whether 19 people sign up or 3256 sign-up. And the entire money to be paid out will come entirely from the buy-ins. No additional funds must be found somewhere else to make sure the winner gets his money. It's all there. That's the definition of self-sustaining. What you're talking about is marketing/advertising to continue trying to draw in new players. But I think it's a gigantic leap and a bit naive to reach a conclusion of no one would want to play it any more.
In fact, in terms of self-sustainment, poker may have already hit its critical mass (in marketing terms). There are things that occassionally become so large that once they hit a certain point there is no reversing it. Sort of like the earth's population. It's gotten to the point now where there are more births than deaths every year, so unless we did something to mess with it the overall population will continue to grow year over year. Poker is in a similar predicament of sorts. Because of the big poker boom and the last several years, there are so many people playing the game around the entire world that I have a very hard time seeing some doomsday scenario about no one wanting to play anymore. Playing poker these days is viral or at least near to it. Kids keep starting younger and more people join every day. There won't be a catastrophic ending or fall-off of new fish coming on board.
No average everyday person would ever have any hope of beating a grandmaster in chess. There is no such luck available or involved. In fact, even if they had a world series of chess, it's not like any average every day person would be able to make it into the event. Qualifiers are in place to stop that from happening. Now I do understand where you were trying to go with this, but poker is different than everything else in these terms. With poker you can walk up to any game (except invitationals obv), plop your money down, and play against professionals. Where else can you do that?
So they can air the pure event and advertise the hell out of it. Then it is what it was supposed to be and it was aired on TV.
Well, if the $50k "HORSElol" event is going to fail and die out simply because the FT wasn't aired on TV as NLHE, then as far as I'm concerned let it die because it was a bad idea and structured wrong. There are other HORSE games that remain pure to the end that have survived just fine.
zachvac
Legend
Silver Level
umm no. ESPN decides what gets aired or not. They have determined they won't air it if FT is not nlhe. Obviously if they'd air it as HORSE the entire way I'd agree with that.
ok would you agree that chess for money is completely self-sustaining? I think there are some cash tourneys people can play, they're just not that popular. Self-sustaining means nothing if it's not a big event. My 5-person 25c/50c college home game was self-sustaining, but that's not the point of the WSOP.
See this is what I just don't get. You'd rather no event than the way it was with nlhe at the FT. I don't care what you call it, call it the poker championship event with HORSE up to FT and nlhe there or call it the HORSE event like it was before. All I know is that I can see the 50k HORSE dying if it's not televised. I mean personally I don't even particularly care, but for the people who will play in the event making it nlhe at the final table basically helps everyone involved.
Crystal Blue
Legend
Silver Level
I think that DN conveniently neglected to mention that event #2 might have had a bearing on the low turnout for the $50K H.O.R.S.E. event. That event was a $40K buy-in and had 201 runners, and is most likely going to to be televised ( can someone confirm that )
It's not unreasonable to suggest that the HORSE event took a hit on turnout because a certain amount of players chose the $40K event over the HORSE event. While some would and could play in both events, others probably had to make a choice between the two.
It's probably highly likely that a good amount of players didn't have to pony up the $40K entry fee either ( if it's being televised )
So while in the past few years certain players didn't have to pony up the $50K buy-in and most likely would of had to this year, low and behold they found themselves with a different freebie option this year with the introduction of the $40K tourn. Interesting.
It's not unreasonable to suggest that the HORSE event took a hit on turnout because a certain amount of players chose the $40K event over the HORSE event. While some would and could play in both events, others probably had to make a choice between the two.
It's probably highly likely that a good amount of players didn't have to pony up the $40K entry fee either ( if it's being televised )
So while in the past few years certain players didn't have to pony up the $50K buy-in and most likely would of had to this year, low and behold they found themselves with a different freebie option this year with the introduction of the $40K tourn. Interesting.
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
I don't believe that you think that Harrah's Entertainment/WSOP coordinators carry absolutely no influence with ESPN at all.
I know nothing about chess tournies, so I can't really agree with anything of the sort.
This whole discussion of self-sustaining is completely out of context now. Maybe you'd prefer I use a different phrase in place of "self-sustaining" since my last two explanations have clearly been ignored. So last try on this piece: The funding of poker tournaments (not including freerolls or money added stuff) comes entirely from the entries fees paid for each player in the event. There is never any reason that anyone anywhere ever has to go drum up ad revenue or concession sales just to make sure that there is enough money to pay to the winners. The moment entry fees start coming in is the same moment that all the prize pool money starts being available for payouts.
Yes.
See, we agree.
I don't think that I've disagreed with this in any way. But they can televise it without changing the the structure, right?
zachvac
Legend
Silver Level
Seems we agree more than we disagree anyway, I just think we're arguing semantics. I've said my case you've said yours I'm done. If you want to argue more we can do it in person in a few days but hopefully there's better things to discuss .
.
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
I concur. See you in a couple days then.
buckster436
Cardschat Hall of Famer - RIP Buck
Silver Level
great post, thanks, today Everything is about money, we all know that, the sponsors bring in big bucks to pros, and the pros love it,,thats all folks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, buck
Divebitch
Miss you, Buckster,,,,,
Silver Level
+2 - I was saying just that a couple weeks ago. I predict they will get rid of HORSE, and make the 50k or 'prestige event' Mixed 8. Agreed a final table of NLHE would be far more palatable to the players (and to me, as I'm somewhat of a purist), as it is 1 of the 8 games included. In fact, the way I see it, Mixed 8 is the only answer. And really, with PLO, NLHE, and (well, okay....
) 2-7 Triple Draw, what could be more prestigious?
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
I'm not at home at the moment so I'll address the rest when I get time. But I had to respond to this one.
Harrah's have little if any influence on what ESPN shows - if you read guys like DrPauly, it's actually the opposite that's true. Maybe it's not "absolutely no" influence, but it's pretty close to it and it's certainly not enough to make them forget about the lousy HORSE ratings.
The Main Event final table delay (which is back for this year) proves that. ESPN wanted a convoluted and difficult solution to the problem of people knowing who won the Main Event months before they aired it, and they got it because they're ESPN and they've got all the power. That wasn't something they planned in advance either: they shoehorned it in at the last minute, at ESPN's insistence.
I'll cover the rest later. But it's pretty obvious, I think, that what ESPN says goes.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
I was gonna write some other stuff, but this basically sums up my viewpoint and I think it sums up what Negreanu was getting at too.
Take away the TV, take away the sponsored entries, and there'll only be a handful of people left to play in this event. Maybe there'll be one or two stupid rich people who want to play the role of dead money, but mostly it'll only be the top mixed game pros that'll have the means to play.
I know, I know, that's great and that's what the tournament is supposed to be about. Except these top pros aren't stupid. I don't know if anyone read my point about Bobby's Room earlier, but the same really does apply here - it's established fact that Bobby's Room doesn't run unless the players are happy with the number of fish (whales actually, I guess) in the game. These are the same people we're talking about playing in the $50K HORSE and I'm certain they'll apply the same logic.
You don't have an edge when everyone else is pretty much as good as you are. And if you don't have an edge, or some other reason to play like television exposure or sponsorship, you're paying an entry fee to be in the wrong game.
Anywho, I guess we agree to disagree. And FWIW, I'd prefer to watch HORSE played all the way through the final table too. I really enjoyed the past few years telecasts of the event. But I'm not kidding myself, I know I'm definitely in the minority and I can recognise how important TV is to an event like this.
DaFrench1
Visionary
Silver Level
I can understand that people aren't going to be excited by watching a FT where it may be Razz or Stud H/L being played to decide the winner. But it really doesn't make sense to suddenly have NLHE to decide the winner of a limit HORSE tournament (I didn't even know they did before, I found it bizarre).
Surely the best compromise would be to just say that its HORSE all the way to the FT but then once there the game sticks at Limit Holdem. I think the TV and the purists could be happy with that?
Surely the best compromise would be to just say that its HORSE all the way to the FT but then once there the game sticks at Limit Holdem. I think the TV and the purists could be happy with that?
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Surely the best compromise would be to just say that its HORSE all the way to the FT but then once there the game sticks at Limit Holdem. I think the TV and the purists could be happy with that?
Worst of both worlds, IMO.
You're abandoning the HORSE concept, even if it's for a game that's already in the mix. So the "you should play HORSE at a HORSE final table" purists still won't be happy.
And the few times I've seen LHE televised it's been pretty freakin' dull - I think ESPN abandoned televising straight LHE tournaments years ago. The producers will be looking for the big bluffs and all-in moments that NLHE provides and if you're going to abandon HORSE... well, why not abandon it for the more exciting game?
DaFrench1
Visionary
Silver Level
I dunno about that. I'm pretty sure I watched 2 limit FT's on ESPN last year and they were both good viewing. Especially because the blinds are so high by that stage that the players are having to commit large percentages of their stack to reach a showdown with many tough decisons on the last two streets to call off those big bets.
Another alternative I haven't seen mentioned would be to maybe make the games rotate every orbit rather than every couple of hours? (would have to have lower blind increments). How would you feel about that? I think the only issue TV really has is not getting stuck on Razz or Stud H/L for the final sitting.