The changing face of poker, but the same old traditions - very long

[The Dundonian]

Great article Peter and I have to agree. I'm Just back from Vegas (had a ball) where I played in the $2000 freeze-out (my first ever WSOP event).
I was amazed to be given only 2000 chips with a 25/25 starting ante.
3 hands in I found AQ with an AQ2 flop, I lost a lot of chips to trip 2's.
Every decision I made after that was for all my chips, needless to say I only lasted another couple of hours.
This isn't meant to be a bad beat story just an example in justification of Peters article. I will look for a better structured event the next time I am in Vegas and will give the WSOP a miss.

[Peter Costa]

I like the idea of a modified shootout, but wonder how long it would leave people standing about from the first table finished to the last table finished in Round 1.

I'd certainly enjoy playing this type of tourney - but am not sure if it would be practical for the thousands of entries in the WSOP main event.

I understand these concerns but don't really have an answer as it has not been tried. I guess that with the main event, players could play just just one round per say but have two scheduled round per day. That way, once a table is over, players can juts call it a day. As for "hanging" around if players are to play more than once - I don;t think many would mind if they knew the exact time of the second round etc.. Also, perhaps that tables only have to lose 5 players, they may well finish close together?

Again, thanks for the replay.

[Peter Costa]

The problem with the WSOP is simply one of size - there are too many players. If you have 2000 players, but want them all to have good starting stacks and a good structure, it's going to take days to get a winner. The entry fees for all the Holdem events should be increased simply to limit the numbers.

I think this response is very much in line with many of the players. Harrah's must somehow ignore the desire for more and more players , and focus more on simply trying to offer the players what they want. Who knows, they may wellbenefit in the longer term.  Either way, something has to change!

[Peter Costa]

Peter, how would you address what I perceive to be the barriers to the creation of a fully inclusive players association...ie the interests of the stars/faces/names can be very different from the satellite winner or the unknown pro etc. It is amazing that in poker the players have to pay to enter and in effect play for their own collective money yet in many cases do not get anything from image rights, tv money, sponsored added money etc

Without one voice the players will struggle to have real influence.

Would it be better to have seperate voices for the amatuer and professional game?

This is a very diffcult issue to address. My feeling is that there is room for both to mix and to grow. However, perhaps the WSOP can in future have exclusive "pro" or invitational events to run alongside open events. For example, the current situation of having two events a day seems to be going well. So why not simply exapand this? This would then allow for more chips and more play as players will split between the two events.

[Rooky9]

decrease the number of events and have 1 event every 2 days which would enable harrah's to give a bigger starting stack and all round better structure

and lose juice raked!!

[Peter Costa]

decrease the number of events and have 1 event every 2 days which would enable harrah's to give a bigger starting stack and all round better structure

and lose juice raked!!

Yep- that's what we are up against! Bussines first or player's needs? Sadly, we are in second place and sliding! -

[I, Zimbra]

Daniel Negreanu mentioned an interesting idea in one of his recent video blogs:

To have an event only for bracelet winners (i.e. to give the crowds a chance at a 'star-studded' final table)

And also, to have an exclusively non-bracelet winner event, i.e. only people with zero bracelets can enter.

[Jon MW]

The problem with the WSOP is simply one of size - there are too many players. If you have 2000 players, but want them all to have good starting stacks and a good structure, it's going to take days to get a winner. The entry fees for all the Holdem events should be increased simply to limit the numbers.

I think this response is very much in line with many of the players. Harrah's must somehow ignore the desire for more and more players , and focus more on simply trying to offer the players what they want. Who knows, they may wellbenefit in the longer term.  Either way, something has to change!

I understand Harrah's need to make money from the World Series, and hence their preference for more and more players, but it needs someone there to see that even in business terms this is being shortsighted.

If one of their executives could look beyond their next bonus, and look at the long term future of the company, they might realise that the heritage that the WSOP is currently trading on is going to look less and less important the longer the current situation continues. In ten, twenty or thirty years time the origin of the festival is going to be overshadowed by the decades of mismanagement that we have started to see since the explosion of internet poker and corresponding size of the field in the Main Event. In this circumstance a rival of the World Series is likely to take over as the premier event of the year - this is likely to lead to the winner of that event being known as the World Champion. This will, ironically, lead to the WSOP field reducing as players abandon it for the more desirable event - and there goes Harrah's cash cow.

Boxing shows that multiple World Champions are viable in a sport, but it also shows that some have more respect and integrity than others. If Harrah's doesn't want their gilt edged poker festival becoming tarnished and undermined in decades to come they have to do something about it now whilst they still have the goodwill. If the organisation and structure can be upgraded to truly World Championship standards - and maintained - there is no reason why it should ever truly be challenged, and consequently Harrah's will maintain their revenue stream from it in perpetuity.

Incidentally www.bls.gov has an inflation calculator which tells me that $10,000 in 1972 has the same buying power as $48,540 now (about $50k then).
Hmmm I'm sure there's some conclusion that could be made from that.   

[I, Zimbra]

The argument for adjusting the buy-ins of the WSOP for inflation have been made many, many times over the last few years.

Personally, I am all for it - but then I am unlikely ever to play in the event, anyway, so I don't know how much weight my opinion would carry. My reason for wanting to see the buy-in lifted is simply because I believe it will make it a better event to watch.

It's an argument of elitism vs. inclusionism. At the moment, the Main Event is affordable to a very wide range of people. Bumping it up will price out some very talented players for whom a $50k event is above their bankroll. Back in the day, the whole idea of the Main Event of the World Series of Poker was elitist; the Binions (as I understand it) concept was to have a tournament of the best of the best and the highest of high rollers (who would then of course, go broke to the pros in the cash games, and at the craps tables).

But these days, the WSOP is something else; the internet revolution has - in some peoples' minds - changed what the WSOP is about, which is the ultimate egalitarian pasttime; you can play if you're thin, fat, old, young, male, female - it doesn't matter where you're from, what you look like, what God you believe in - or don't believe in! Nor does it even really matter how much money you have: $10k is not what it once was, and in any case satellites start from just a few dollars - so anyone can potentially do what Moneymaker did.

However, I am of the opinion that even with a $50k buy in, there will still be enough online qualifiers and people staked to make a 'buy-in boosted' Main Event a good thing, especially from the point of view of a spectator. Maybe an extra round of satellites will be necessary, but you'll still see (relatively) large fields, and a wide range of talented players, amateur and professional.

[AlrightJack]

Interesting suggestion Peter. I agree with Rod that the main problem with shootouts is hanging around waiting for that one extra tight table to conclude. The only viable way round this is to play the next stage the next day but this also causes problems in that each tournament could take several days to complete. With some fine tuning this could probably be circumnavigated.

One tournament that you may not be aware of that tried to restructure the shootout tournament somewhat was the recent Poker 6 tournament in Bolton. On day one it was a short handed shootout, on day two the winners from day one played still on short handed tables, but not as a shootout, as a regular multi-table tournament. The losers from day one were all treated to a consolation tournament on day two so everyone had something to return for.

Anyway, I'm on my way to Vegas on Tuesday so hope to catch up with you there. I look forward to discussing this further.

[Rooky9]

decrease the number of events and have 1 event every 2 days which would enable harrah's to give a bigger starting stack and all round better structure

and lose juice raked!!

Yep- that's what we are up against! Bussines first or player's needs? Sadly, we are in second place and sliding! -

I honestly can't see thier motivation to change from what they are doing.... the result of the top players unionising may create that, but even then.....