provoking thought

[mahound]

I was reading a recent article by Simon (ACES) Trumper, on the UK Betting site (http://www.ukbettingpoker.co.uk/Lessons/0,12862,298200,00.html ), in which he suggested that the top players should play together so that the public can see their favourite stars regularly and all the finals will comprise great lineups.

I think that this could turn out to be one of the first attempts by proffesional players to form a sort of elitist Professional Poker Players Association.

I think the idea of the tournaments would be a great idea, but not if it means excluding the ordinary punter. I think that to do this would be a bad thing for poker in general.

The way I see it is that  a lot of sponsorship will be / and is being attracted to the game.
 
Its popularity is growing because of the influx of online players, anybody with the talent, some luck and a even only a small bankroll can compete with the best players in the top events.

Poker is the only game in the world where a rank amateur can play with and if he makes the right decisions beat the Pro's.

If it wasn't for the growth of the internet poker sites:



Would the game be as big as it currently is?

Would the live tournaments be attracting the increasing number of entrants?

Would the sponsers be putting up the money if the game was not being watched and played by the ordinary player.


In the past professional poker players have been more than happy to take the fish's money. so don,t let the profesionals close ranks and stop the amateur player from having their chance at the top.

Strange to see, that in a lot of big money tournaments a lot of the finalist's got their by qualifying in sattelites from the net.


How many players will have won a seat to the WSOP by qualifying on line?


I think that in a couple of years the old style professional player will not be able to compete against the internet players unless they adapt to the poker net.

What do you think?


Cheers

[RED-DOG]

I agree with you m8

[divaflava]

Any new thoughts?

Let me re-phrase this... does the experience of the last nine months since this was originally posted strengthen or weaken the case for 'name only' tournies?

For instance, there was a seven seat stt featuring some of the biggest names of the current day recently which attracted a lot of interest... but the play shown failed to live up to the expectations of the 'improving' players I've discussed it with.

Whereas the popularity of celeb 'poker' (to a wider audience) seems to suggest to me that the unusual element of luck in a skill game - and the idea that anyone can win - is even more appealing than it was nine months ago. I'd cite Helen Chamberlin's success in the pokermillion as an example, although that is by no means a criticism of her aptitude for the game.

[TightEnd]

i agree with your sentiments

however on the flip side the poker players desperately need an association to be formed to represent their interests in negotiations with tv companies, live venues and online sites (more added money, flatter prixze structures, tournament scheduling etc just for starters)

If this happens this should aid all of us, but it would be naive to expect it to happen without the clout the top players provide and the price for it may be more invitational events as now happens more on the US scene

[Robert HM]

Any new thoughts?

A bit ambiguous there. Not like a copywriter.

New thoughts about the issue addressed to RED?
or
Have you simply simply followed the debate before? Don't forget many haven't.

[byronkincaid]

PPT. nuff said

[divaflava]

duly edited briefmeister

[Highstack]

If this happens this should aid all of us, but it would be naive to expect it to happen without the clout the top players

Who is to say these are the top players? They have just been at it a little longer and are known for their tv exploits. The reason for closing ranks is because they can see the threat of new players and for no other reason.

When they were winning regularly, there were less people playing the game and so less competion to beat (admittedly you can only beat what is in front of you). A lot of players now are well educated and understand/learn the game quickly as the internet brings a new breed. There is much more educational literature around now and many get involved in forums such as this.

Results speak volumes and they must earn the right to consider themselves a top player. I guess that you will only hear of the also rans wanting to close ranks. The real top players don't need to.

[TightEnd]

If this happens this should aid all of us, but it would be naive to expect it to happen without the clout the top players

Who is to say these are the top players? They have just been at it a little longer and are known for their tv exploits. The reason for closing ranks is because they can see the threat of new players and for no other reason.

When they were winning regularly, there were less people playing the game and so less competion to beat (admittedly you can only beat what is in front of you). A lot of players now are well educated and understand/learn the game quickly as the internet brings a new breed. There is much more educational literature around now and many get involved in forums such as this.

Results speak volumes and they must earn the right to consider themselves a top player. I guess that you will only hear of the also rans wanting to close ranks. The real top players don't need to.

  but will any association have the capacity to open doors without the involvement fo those who gained their profile before the game got this big?

[Highstack]

If it is profit making they wil yes. Therefore it comes back to the basic economic pricipals of how they view the market forces in relation to supply and demand.