blonde poker forum

i can't help it but i've just got to bring up negreanu's interview in the January edition of PokerPlayerMagazine.

PPM - you mean that there are a lot of flukey winners in important tournaments.
NEG - until recently, there were maybe 2 flukes in 20 years but aside from those, every w.s.o.p. champion became an established player. you never had a guy playing his first tournament and winning the thing.

PPM - how do you fix that
NEG - for starters, the main event needs to be changed completely. the biggest problem is that its too easy for amateurs to play against a table full of amateurs all day and then do the same thing the day after that.......

PPM - I CAN'T SEE MORE THAN 50 PEOPLE BUYING INTO A $100,000 TOURNAMENT.
NEG - That would be perfect. But i see 90 to 105 people buying into a $100,000 tournament. For the $50,000, there'd be 250 people. Those are great numbers and representative of what poker tournaments used to be. You would not see cinderellas representing 98% of the tournament field.


NEG - What is the significance of all these w.s.o.p. bracelets?   Who was the $1500 no-limit hold em winner last year?   i don't know because there were 6 of them.

isn't this is the guy who used 28 re buys a few years ago to win a bracelet



i'm sick of the guy.  if all these donkeys stop playing poker so that he can win another tournament then pretty soon it wouldn't be worth playing poker.   why does he want to change a winning formula for poker?

is this the one in which he says the WSOP ME should be changed to a shootout? a strange opinion I thought

I love Negreanu generally, but he has been a whiney little chuff whenever he talks about large field no limit hold'em tournaments.

Every year he puts he two pence worth in about how he would change the WSOP and he got what he asked for when they added more mixed/limit/hi-lo events.

But then he still perpetually whines about how 'real' players have no chance in the main event. I think his integral problem is that he doesnt recognise the genuine ability of some of the internet players. He isnt exactly a massive winner online either.

What he seems to forget is that without all these players, he would never have amassed nearly $10 million in tournament winnings. Sure he would have a few more bracelets, but I'm sure he prefers the dough.

Love the guy, but he really is in danger of dissapearing up his own arse on this particular subject.

From a spectators point of view, I say let's go with Negreanu and bump up the buy-in.


Disagree with PPM here. If it's the main event, millions will still want the chance to qualify, and hundreds will still make it.

Gotta block the 3rd party registrations, even for the $100,000 buy-in, or you'll still get four online qualifiers to every face. (and therefore, still get a moaning Canadian)

Why not have a $100K event?  Great idea I think...

I think it's shocking that they allow anyone except for Americans and Canadians in a 'World Series'.  It just devalues it having these Johnny foreigners in the event.

I always thought the beauty of poker is that you can sit at a table with a legend of the game on a fairly level playing field unlike any other'sport' He is trying to take that away with his comments.

I'm pretty he had an influence on the WSOP adding more mixed/stud games to last years schedule with his comments that it was the 'World Series of Hold'em'  - but he has no chance in hell of changing the main event.

Harrahs, ESPN, Pokerstars, Full Tilt, Party Poker, Pokernews, Cardplayer, Bluff, the mayor of Las Vegas, 8000 poker players, all the casino staff, Las Vegas taxi drivers etc etc etc dont want to change the main event, so doubtful Negreanu could change anything about it.

Now if Phil Hellmuth wanted to change it.......

That said, I do think there is room and demand for a $50,000+ NLHE event

And you still can. It's the same as it's always been - if you pay the buy-in, anyone can enter.

Bear in mind that the buy-in for the main event of the WSOP has not changed at all. If it had kept up with inflation it would be $50,000 today.

Agreed that you still can Andrew, but he is trying to change that it seems!

not just inflation, there is more money in poker now. the big players are richer, its madness that there isnt a huge NLH event

There is a balance to be struck. Whilst restricting the entry unduly would be silly, he does have a point about the 'Cinderellas'. Having an amateur come from nowhere to win the WSOP is a great story, but a final table of nine nobodies doesn't really do much for poker. Get that every year and the TV companies lose interest. No TV means sponsors drift off and poker starts going backwards.

but then if you had no cinderellas at the final table, would that not affect the number of players playing the game that are chasingthe dream and put poker back to the pre moneymaker days?

There wouldn't be no Cinderellas. would there? There are multi-millionaire young internet players who the non-poker press would class as 'nobodies'. "21 year old Sven from a small village in Sweden wins $15m in his first trip to Las Vegas" is a Cinderella story as far as most people are concerned - they won't know that Sven spends all his time playing four tables of $100/$200 NL online.

indeed.

All those "names" that keep moaning about how they can't win events anymore are simply not adapting well enough. Moany little shit he's turning into. no wonder he had to take the pokerstars sponsorship..it's the only way he can afford to keep playing online.

 rotflmfao rotflmfao

Didn't Phil Helmuth win a bracelet in the $1500 event ?

who?

The git who wouldn't sign my baseball for Adam

Thats cause he cant spell hellmuth probably.

100k ME has been long overdue.

I've been saying that for years..I can't be arsed going over to vegas to play a donkament with only a 10k buy-in..who do they think I am "Jesus" Ferguson?

Couldn't disagree more on this. Since when has been all about pandering to name players so they get tv time. I use the phrase 'name' players as a lot of then aren't better than average. Anyone has the right to pays their money and take their chance. The only 'names' you get whining are those who simply aren't that good, especially compared to the players coming through. they don't have the skill, application etc to modify their game to suit large runner, generally more aggressive fields.

Since companies like ESPN gave Harrahs big bucks for TV rights. And other companies gave big bucks to Harrahs for sponsorship which would appear on the TV coverage. If there's much more 'Johnny Nobody's AK beats Bobby Whohe's QQ' for entire stretches of TV coverage then viewers watch something else, ESPN don't pay as much for the rights and Harrahs don't make as much money.

After the Moneymaker/internet poker perfect storm, the sheer numbers of players taking a chance sustained interest. I think that's becoming old hat, especially as the numbers and prize money were down last year.

So Harrahs will look for some way to generate interest, and that will revolve around trying to get more name players at final tables.

No-one is suggesting an invite only, or tournament of champions main event here.

The players coming through you speak of will be able to afford the $100k if they are good. They still have the right to pay their money and take a chance.

OK so you're tired of Neg but what about the proposed change to the structure? I like the idea of having to win your table to move through the rounds. Would add a sporting dimension to the comp and I think it would be a much more genuine test of skill overall and diminish the 'Dimitri Nobles' type effect which for me kinda kills the thing.

Not sayin his idea is a perfect solution but I'd rather watch that on telly...however, I'd rather play in the WSOP Main Event as it is for the same reason! :)

I don't mind the idea of a shoot-out format for the main event, with you getting paid a bit every time you completed a table. For a premium you could also allow people to buy in to the later stages. Would be more TV friendly too I think. I think top two or three from each table should progress to the next round to stop it being too much down to luck at each stage.

Then again this is a long way from the huge tournament that it is now and might be a better idea for a seperate event, how a bout a World Championship that actually moves around the world and leaves the World Series as it is.

I think at the end of the day it will have more to do with money for the TV companies and organisers than what (some) players want.

Dont agree with a shootout at all. Tournaments are about accumulating chips, a shootout would negate that. As we speak Phil (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=709) Ivey (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=709) is a monster chip leader in the aussie millions, he put himself in this unbeatable position by being great at poker, if the event was a shootout he would be back to square one with every table.Chip leaders and short stacks are what poker is all about for me, shootouts negate that.

 A main event shootout format would actually favour online SNG players as much as anyone, which Im sure Negreanu would be whining about a few years down the line.

Also it would slow the event down incredibly.

The HORSE event should be the ME.  That'll help decide who the true 'world champion' is.  That's my 2 cents.

And, yeah, Negreanu is a moany little shit on this subject.

a lot of people advocate this but why? I don't see the logic in the ME being in a discipline that isn't played the rest of the year.
most other major tournies through the year are NLHE so we'll decide the world champion by playing a limit mixed game. does not compute

I think i may have missed something here? surly Daniel Negreanu is one of the most liked and respected pro's that walk the Earth? Sure he has views that some people may not agree with but for me he plays poker in the true spirit of the game and is a marvelous ambassador for poker.

Why does he now become a "whining little shit" just because you do not agree with his comments?

if he he doesnt like it he could always vote with his feet and not play the wsop me

Good point, well made.

I disagree that STT players would benefit most from the shootout structure. The winner take all nature of each table would have them throw their relative chip values out the window and make it play more like a cash game.

can you imagine the ME being all shootouts with 2 hour levels though?..it'd take aaaaaaaaaaaaaaages

Although the necessity for everyone to play in the same location would be removed, and so you could play the games somewhere other than an aircraft hanger.

Cos you're looking for the best POKER player - not the best Holdem player.  I've no problem with a holdem world championship being in there somewhere too.   

The Open isn't decided by a putting challenge - putting is only one aspect of golf so the golfers are assessed over 18 full holes which will take in all the different range of skills required to be a great golfer.

Granted, you can be a great holdem player and make lots of money playing that game exclusively but then you're the best holdem player - not the best poker player.  There are many different forms of poker so i just think some more of these should be incorporated into the world championship when trying to find the best poker player around.  The only criticism I would have of HORSE being the ME is the fact it is played as a limit game but there would also be ways around this.

I guess it's a subject that there's always gonna be debate about but, hey, that's what we're on a forum for I suppose.

To add to AndrewT's point, don't forget that at the WSOP 2007. One final table was played TEN-handed because Phil Helmuth was the 2nd shortest stack and ESPN had to have him make the final table...

so you create a ME consisting of LHE which is rarely played as a tourney, LO8 which is rarely played as a tourney, razz which nobody ever plays and 2 forms of stud which are rarely played now.

we completely omit NLHE the most played form of tournament poker and PLO hi the second most played and somehow decide this should decide who the best player is. I don't get it to be honest.

why should these 5 games played in a limit tournament decide who is world champion?

They world champion should be decided with all the following disciplines to determine who is truly the best....

Golf
Omaha Hi-Lo

Fixed limit Stud
Uber-deep stacked NLHE
Crazy prop bets
Kings are wild Razz

You-tube educational film making
One card brag
Understanding Sklansky
Reading 2+2
Selling your autobiography
Eating junk food
Limit Holdem
Fighting the urge to call everyone donks.

Forgot to mention that the final table should involve jelly wrestling.

WSOP is about the marketing.

ESPN makes it so. They're not interested in who's the best just who shouts the loudest (Rainkhan).

I think 10k too cheap 50k too much

Perhaps 20-25k

Oh and a shootout would be awful for the ME IMO

That's all well and good but that doesn't solve the problem that one NLHE tournament (no matter how high the buy-in) doesn't determine who the best poker player is.  Maybe it's time to create a new game that includes things like NLHE, PL Omaha, Limit Sud, etc.  As long as you can create an animal acronym with the initials.

Alternitavely, take the existing HOSE variation and change the limits according to the game being played (e.g. holdem is played NL as that's the most popular version of it, Omaha is played PL, Stud is Limit and O8 is played PL too).  It just seems a bit fairer than having a big NLHE tournament to decide who the best in the world is.  As another poster said though, ESPN put a lot of money in and they're only interested in seeing Matusow, Hellmuth, etc shouting after losing a half million dollar pot so it probably won't ever change.

I like your thinking - it's the way forward ;D

ok, so obv I don't like HORSE determining the world champ and I agree that a NLHE event shouldn't do it either.

my solution is to keep the WSOP as it is now, leave the ME as the ME. that's the biggy and the one people want to play.

now to determine the world champion we have a points scoring system based on finishes in each of the championship events (these already exist for each discipline). Finishes in non championship events do not count. most points = world champ. simple

Sounds like an idea.  Only problem would be that the winner wouldn't get the big glamorous, glitzy presentation of the bracelet, prize, etc.  Another way would be have a set amount of tournaments throughout the year (similar to the PGA tour) and the top 50 players or so at the end play in a tournament to decide the winner (chip stacks in the tourney are decided by where you finish in the league).  It's similar to how normal poker leagues are run I suppose, except it would hopefully attract the very top players along with online qualifiers, rich businessmen, etc.

Now we just need to decide what kind of game the final tournament should be  ;)

Let the argument begin.... ;D

No Western Roll?

why wouldn't they?

They would obviously get a presentation of some sort but it wouldn't be anywhere near the kind of thing you get at the culmination of a big tournament.  Theoretically, they might not even be in the last tournament when it's taking place so might be on the other side of the world or wherever.

Just to alter the subject slightly but which world champion (in any sport) was actually the best at the time.

And thus what structure is the optimal to determine the "best"

considering the players who would be in contention for this under my system I'd be amazed if you found any of them weren't in Vegas for the last championship event as this is the ME

Darts - Phil Taylor

Snooker - Stephen Hendry

Football (substitute 'player' with 'team') - Brazil (1970)

Just a few examples of people who were clearly the best at the time.

I would choose:

Brazil - Football - world cup finals (just the best)
Steve (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=413) Davis (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=413)/Steven Hendry snooker (long games)

OK I am having a problem with this (well finding the good teams who lost) so lets switch it round, which sport gives the worst world champions?

Poker (Moneymaker)  ;D

nail/head

"best" is so subjective.

GO FUWCK YOURSELF. Hmmm, possible.

I think there are two assumptions that get made that are possibly incorrect. One is that the final is often made up of 'Cinderellas' rather than the more skilled players. However, if you look back at recent years, you'll notice that respected pros such as Marcel Luske, Phil Ivey, Andy Black, Julian Gardner, Allen Cunningham and more have ploughed through huge fields to prove that the cream can rise to the top, even though the pros are vastly outnumbered. Even winners such as Hachem and Raymer, who were respected players before they triumphed, have gone on to prove their worth in the poker world. As for Jerry Yang, he did play that final table better than anyone else and so perhaps was deserving of his win. Then take a look at Dan Harrington. He defied the odds to hit that final table two years in a row, and both times the field was massive. Jamie Gold receives a lot of criticism, but he played an aggressive game, kept applying the pressure on his opponents and, in all fairness, used speech play to great effect, even if it was obvious to us viewers.

The other assumption is that the 'name' players are actually better than the less familiar faces. This may be true on the whole, but there are plenty of capable online players out there and just because we don't recognise them during the latter stages, doesn't necessarily mean they are any worse than the big guns. As AndrewT said, a Cinderella story to some may actually be one of Europe's finest high stakes players. Fame and recognition doesn't necessary equate to quality of play.

For me, just because the field is big doesn't mean we receive a less esteemed or worthy final table. In 2007, we had an EPT finalist in Hilm, an established pro and highly successful name in Lee Watkinson, a bracelet winner in Alex Kravchenko, a highly respected Brit in Jon Kalmar who has previously run well in the Main Event and an online whiz in Haved Khan. Childs, Lam and Rhame were no mugs either. If the event held a smaller field, would the final table really be that more esteemed or higher in standard? Even if they were all recognisable, surely it's not unfeasible that all nine actually played better than the pros. The WSOP Main Event is about who performed on that week, not who is the best player before the event. Like most sports, if the pros don't perform on the day, then they don't deserve to win.

I can't recall what year it was, but even when there were a minuscule amount of players, a complete random can still win. Des Wilson recalled a chap who was absolutely clueless, but still won the Main Event when numbers were small, and subsequently disappeared. If this guy had won in the modern day game, people would soon be jumping on the bandwagon and saying what a lottery it is. Not true in my book. Yes, the numbers are tougher, but poker is a game where luck is always going to be prevalent, whatever the field. If a pro won the Main Event, is it not possible that he was lucky rather than just skilled in victory?

Considering inflation and the fact there are now several other 10k events available, I'm happy for the fee to be bumped up to $25k as it will still create online qualifiers thereby remaining available to players of all bankrolls (which is important as not all good poker players are wealthy), but I don't buy into the idea that a bigger field creates a less worthy crop of finalists. Poker shouldn't just be about how you play against the good players, but also how you deal with the so called donks.

excellent post snoops..but you agree that a true ME should be a Fixed limit razz event with 50k chips and 5 hour levels, no?

I think there are two assumptions that get made that are possibly incorrect. One is that the final is often made up of 'Cinderellas' rather than the more skilled players. However, if you look back at recent years, you'll notice that respected pros such as Marcel Luske, Phil Ivey, Andy Black, Julian Gardner, Allen Cunningham and more have ploughed through huge fields to prove that the cream can rise to the top, even though the pros are vastly outnumbered. Even winners such as Hachem and Raymer, who were respected players before they triumphed, have gone on to prove their worth in the poker world. As for Jerry Yang, he did play that final table better than anyone else and so perhaps was deserving of his win. Then take a look at Dan Harrington. He defied the odds to hit that final table two years in a row, and both times the field was massive. Jamie Gold receives a lot of criticism, but he played an aggressive game, kept applying the pressure on his opponents and, in all fairness, used speech play to great effect, even if it was obvious to us viewers.

The other assumption is that the 'name' players are actually better than the less familiar faces. This may be true on the whole, but there are plenty of capable online players out there and just because we don't recognise them during the latter stages, doesn't necessarily mean they are any worse than the big guns. As AndrewT said, a Cinderella story to some may actually be one of Europe's finest high stakes players. Fame and recognition doesn't necessary equate to quality of play.

For me, just because the field is big doesn't mean we receive a less esteemed or worthy final table. In 2007, we had an EPT finalist in Hilm, an established pro and highly successful name in Lee Watkinson, a bracelet winner in Alex Kravchenko, a highly respected Brit in Jon Kalmar who has previously run well in the Main Event and an online whiz in Haved Khan. Childs, Lam and Rhame were no mugs either. If the event held a smaller field, would the final table really be that more esteemed or higher in standard? Even if they were all recognisable, surely it's not unfeasible that all nine actually played better than the pros. The WSOP Main Event is about who performed on that week, not who is the best player before the event. Like most sports, if the pros don't perform on the day, then they don't deserve to win.

I can't recall what year it was, but even when there were a minuscule amount of players, a complete random can still win. Des Wilson recalled a chap who was absolutely clueless, but still won the Main Event when numbers were small, and subsequently disappeared. If this guy had won in the modern day game, people would soon be jumping on the bandwagon and saying what a lottery it is. Not true in my book. Yes, the numbers are tougher, but poker is a game where luck is always going to be prevalent, whatever the field. If a pro won the Main Event, is it not possible that he was lucky rather than just skilled in victory?

Considering inflation and the fact there are now several other 10k events available, I'm happy for the fee to be bumped up to $25k as it will still create online qualifiers thereby remaining available to players of all bankrolls (which is important as not all good poker players are wealthy), but I don't buy into the idea that a bigger field creates a less worthy crop of finalists. Poker shouldn't just be about how you play against the good players, but also how you deal with the so called donks.

excellent post again snoops..as it was the first time ;)

stop encouraging him. I don't want to have to read it a 3rd time

so you went through the whole thing again as well? I just had to re-read it as I though there might be a subtle change to it...then again..no need to change what is already perfect

excellent post snoopy i agree, i think poker itself would be taking a big step backwards trying to make conditions of entry for main event out of reach to all the everyday poker players around the world.after all the storys of uknowns playing for millions and winning against  the big names in poker has been a big reason for the poker boom. so now they want to make the tournament like anyother big poker pro tournament just for a select few who can afford it. putting the dream of playing in the main event out of reach to millions of everyday poker players, bit selfish when you come to think about it ,i think a lot of the usa pros think the world is  in awe of them sometimes, good point about when a pro wins he must of did it through skill and not luck, anyone whos ever won the main event has to have a bit of luck somewhere, i thought scotty ngoyen was the biggest self distruct ive saw in years  at this years wsop and he is 1 of the biggest pros in the world ,if he would of sucked out a few times i imagine the pros would of called it skill, i love to follow main event on the web following the updates and shouting on a few fav players and all the brits, dont think wsop would be the same if just top pros,it wouldnt  be special ,to me the main event is not about finding the best poker player in the world its about the most exciting poker tournament in the world

Hal Flower is the guy your thinking of Snoops the 1979 wsop me winner. What a weird story that is, my favourite chapter in Ghosts at the table.