WSOP increasing main event buy in

[fellowswheel]

What does everyone think about wsop main event buy in being increased to either 50,000 or 100,000. How would it affect the quality of players, how would it affect the tournament overall.

Do you think it should be increased, and if so why. Compensate for inflation, or to decrease total numbers, etc.

 

[Gallo]

I think its a bit too high. 30K seems reasonable. It will keep the average joe involved and keep the quality of play. Just my .02

 

[Henreiman]

Doubt it would happen...it comes down to an equal balance of quality

 

[ryaned]

I can't imagine they would increase 50-100K...the current formula is a commercial bonanza

 

[Merlin333]

Puzzling? Higher buy in?

I don't think it is primarily the "average joe" who pays the 10K buy-in. It would be a business error to raise the price so high that only a certain, smaller group of people willing to pay an ever-increasing buy-in. My guess is that there are proportionally as many poor players among those whose main qualification is being able to afford the buy-in.

A major reason for poker's popularity is the "MoneyMaker" effect which in is the attraction caused by "hey he did it so can I". I was a writer in television (NBC) am a marketing director for a company now and have many marketing friends. I recall a conversation regarding a study assessing whether the celebrity influx was a good thing and at what level it would cease to be a draw for viewership. I personally find the shows populated by "celebrity" players less interesting.

I'm puzzled by the fact that some elements of the poker community are so vocal in their advocating segmented participation. For example there is always talk of "FRW's" even when these tournaments are seldom full, complaints about bad play when getting to the 2nd or 3rd break usually takes care of that, a call for restricting admission to tournaments at the outset of the "poker craze" some pros said the influx of so many amateurs and tournament size was a problem (this from the people making money from books that preach "a winning player adjusts to the game"). Recently I've heard statements from many pros that the influx of new talent is actually good and there are many good players among them (I don't think reasonably, anyone could expect them all to be Alan Cunningham's). Now there is a movement to place prestige on the higher buy-in HORSE tournament - what next a pro-pinochle tournament?

What I'm saying is that my opinion is that it would not be good for poker to create barriers that have the effect of reducing participation. I think financial considerations of the organizers will not allow it to happen. I am not privy to the information, but I guarantee the operating plans poker tournaments and TV shows are organized by have a prominent chart that shows the optimal ROI on revenue, buy-in, touney size and several other key factors - $10,000 was not a number pulled from of a hat.

Merlin333

 

[Adventurebound2]

Harrah's, who owns WSOP makes X amount from each player and by raising the entry to one that few can afford will do nothing but crush the proffits to be made. Sure they will get a bigger take per person but if that take is 1/20th or less than before the price is raised 5x to 10x they are looking at a subsantial loss of revenue.

Did you happen to notice the drop in the field once Harrah's bought the WSOP all ready? That was mainly because of some rules Harrahs put in to stop gaming websites from sponsoring players who had to wear clothing with their logo (Full Tilt is a god example) and other very restrictive rules related to that. Harrah's greed is certainly a factor here. After all what casino would want another advertising on tv at an event they host? The thing Harrah's overlooked is they are not loosing business to FT or similar sites that people use to gamble online. Those same people are the ones that take the Vegas vacation, and with online experience they are prepared to spend more playing poker etc. in the live casino than ever before.

Watch a bit of '06 WSOP and you'll see a lot people wearing logo for sites (like FT), then watch '07 where they weren't supposed to wear the logo'd clothes.

Personally, I think raise the fee that high is delusional thinking of the management of Harrahs induced by all the media coverage of the Main Event that has them believing that a lot of people are ready willing and able to cough up 5x to 10x the fee of 2 years ago. Just because the WSOP main event was the most sought after game over the last few years certainly doesn't gaurentee it will continue to be in the future. (talking 5-10 years from now, more or less)

On the bright side it has brought new competition into the limelight, who are putting on realtively afforadable tournaments. Take the WTP and PPT as two examples. I would undoubtably expect to see more of these organizations in the future as more companies start up to attract the money that WSOP, WPT, PPT etc. clearly show being made at their major events. Television popularity and the dream of many to make big bucks from poker will certainly drive this industry forward (remember the lottorey 20 years ago compared to today? safe to say it has grown quite a bit.).

I can also see the WSOP slowly decline to obscurity if they continue on the path of the last two years since it was purchased by Harrah's if they don't rethink what they are doing in relations to their policies and pricing. By the same token if they went back to the pre Harrah's policies and allow internet sites the same privilages as before while keeping the entry fee reasonable we could see it grow it to something far bigger than any of us imagine as online poker contiues to grow exponentially through time.

Just a passing thought......

 

[unstoppable4]

Finding the true world champion

For many years the winner of the main event is considered the world champion. If you look at all of the biggest sports in the world the champion is not determined just on one big tournament but on a season and then a tournament at the end. I do not believe that poker is even a sport or not but i do think that the world champion should be decided in a more sportlike manner.

It is my belief that the wsop should spread out there events in a longer span of time. Put in a rankings system for each tournament and each type of game. The top x number of players in the rankings should play a tournament for the title in that game. For instance there would be a hold em champion, an omaha champion, and so on.

Then take each of these players and have them play a HORSE tournament to decide the much more talented (than Jamie Gold) and true champion of the world of poker.

 

[smd173]

On the bright side it has brought new competition into the limelight, who are putting on realtively afforadable tournaments. Take the WTP and PPT as two examples. I would undoubtably expect to see more of these organizations in the future as more companies start up to attract the money that WSOP, WPT, PPT etc. clearly show being made at their major events. Television popularity and the dream of many to make big bucks from poker will certainly drive this industry forward (remember the lottorey 20 years ago compared to today? safe to say it has grown quite a bit.).

Actually WPT Enterprises owns the WPT and the PPT. And the PPT is now defunct because WPTE couldn't secure a TV deal for it. There have been some minor organizations like the Heartland Poker Tour which has secured a small late night TV deal on some obscure channel.

The lottery grew from 20 years ago, because people went crazy for the super $300 Million jackpots generated by the Mega Millions and Powerball.

So in that regard, the WSOP and WPT will most likely remain the top 2 brands and should continue to do what they are doing. I think the only room for further growth would be if the UIGEA is repealed and Harrah's and the WPT open their own online sites. But it could be many years before the US Government sees the light and allows regulation of an online gambling industry.

Even if that doesn't happen, poker may falls into the type of entertainment category that is cyclical in popularity. Yes, it will always have it's hardcore base, but like the WWE will go through 10-15 year cycles of being super popular and then fall back again.

 

[Merlin333]

The "best" ??

Hahahaha don't talk to me about who is the best, world championships and clear-cut "bests".

I an Ohio State University alumni - what do I know!!!!

 

[OzExorcist]

It's been $10K for as long as it's been the Main Event, and according to the structure sheet they're not changing it this year:

World Series of Poker Presented by Milwaukee's Best Light

It's interesting to note that they've raised the buyin of a number of the other "world championship" events to $10K. Last year it was only one $10K event other than the Main Event, this year there's several.

 

[Monoxide]

It should/hopefully stay there....

I mean 50k tourney is like buh so much money. I can see 10k as you could win it i suppose online on PS or smth....

 

[nubstyle]

It should/hopefully stay there....

I mean 50k tourney is like buh so much money. I can see 10k as you could win it i suppose online on PS or smth....

leave the 50k buy-in for the H.O.R.S.E. event. that's where the true players seem to go anyway

 

[arkadiy]

Main Event = Sunday Million

Gets a ton of people that like the name of it and are just trying to win huge cash thinking poker is pure luck.

Other high stake buy-ins have less attractive names then "main event" and prize pools. People stay away from them because those would be stupid to join, if you're gonna get lucky do it with less buy-in and bigger prize pool.

Obviously this is not true, the buy-in being raised would be bad for business.

 

[Uygar89]

first of all, only a few players could pay the entry and so the quality would grow.
people would play tighter and of course the prize pool would be bigger.

 

[nevadanick]

There would be some overall benefit (I think) to raising the buy-in for the Main Event to around $20k. Inflation is just one reason. Second is that it would pre-eliminate some of the lotto players. Getting 'lucky' once doesn't entitle anyone in any other sport to a Forever World Class Player status. Just makes them another World Class Luckbox at the Main Event.

History of poker has been, in the past, for reasonably skilled players to win and with luck being an added factor. It has gone half-circle and now favors Lady Luck.

In my own observation, watching the true pros at the WSOP, they seem to have lost interest in playing the Main Event. Focus has turned to encouraging more support for the HORSE Event becoming the master prize. Many luckbox players shy from entry into the $50k buy-in, or it would already be a larger event.

Sure, the pros play to win, like anyone else in the Main Event, but you can tell the excitement is gone for them. They enter because it is nearly 'required' for photo opps and endorsements, NOT for the sake of playing quality poker. If they want quality, as they exposed in many interviews, they prefer the high stakes cash games now.

Other comments made earlier about year-long events, rankings, etc should be considered. Yes, WSOP has Player of the Year, but it has no relationship to the Main Event - but it should in some manner.

If it is going to grow as a Donkville Event, drop the buy-in to $3-5k and move the Main Event to the Vegas Convention Center - and may the best luckbox win. A live pokerstars Hubble.

 

[KingTurd]

For many years the winner of the main event is considered the world champion. If you look at all of the biggest sports in the world the champion is not determined just on one big tournament but on a season and then a tournament at the end. I do not believe that poker is even a sport or not but i do think that the world champion should be decided in a more sportlike manner.

It is my belief that the wsop should spread out there events in a longer span of time. Put in a rankings system for each tournament and each type of game. The top x number of players in the rankings should play a tournament for the title in that game. For instance there would be a hold em champion, an omaha champion, and so on.

Then take each of these players and have them play a HORSE tournament to decide the much more talented (than Jamie Gold) and true champion of the world of poker.

the call them the world champions because it is a marketing tool. if they don't call them that then the amateur that wins it just another guy that won a tourney, no draw potential.

and to defend that they are the world champ, biggest field, all the players and they come out victorious,. granted every player has a bad day but isn't the concept of poker not luck but strategy? the best should be able to overcome it and the champion obviously does.