HORSE and Other WSOP Gripes

[The Baron]

I would like to know why there is so little variation in the satellites.

As Simon Trumper pointed out, every satellite between $125 and $325 has more or less the same clock and structure.

At $325 a pop (almost a third of some WSOP event buy ins) they're not really the type of satellite value I am after.

Well the 1k events you only get 1k chips, thats even worse!

Yeah agreed, but at least you get a 1 hour clock - not 15 or 20 mins, plus a structure that doesn't skip levels.

[NoflopsHomer]

I would like to know why there is so little variation in the satellites.

As Simon Trumper pointed out, every satellite between $125 and $325 has more or less the same clock and structure.

At $325 a pop (almost a third of some WSOP event buy ins) they're not really the type of satellite value I am after.

Well the 1k events you only get 1k chips, thats even worse!

Yeah agreed, but at least you get a 1 hour clock - not 15 or 20 mins, plus a structure that doesn't skip levels.

Thought it was hour and a half?

[wsopin07]

I would like to know why there is so little variation in the satellites.

As Simon Trumper pointed out, every satellite between $125 and $325 has more or less the same clock and structure.

At $325 a pop (almost a third of some WSOP event buy ins) they're not really the type of satellite value I am after.

Well the 1k events you only get 1k chips, thats even worse!

I am sitting here with Harry in Vegas, here are my issues!!

1) Tournaments of champions, WHAT A JOKE!
2) Coverage by the PAID media outlet, joke!
3) Help for foreign players, joke
4) Rake , joke

WSOP is a basic joke

Does that mean you are not playing any more events Brian?

it means that Harry and myself are going to join forces and try to express our dissatisfaction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I will give back the bracelet?

[brad.strider]

I would like to know why there is so little variation in the satellites.

As Simon Trumper pointed out, every satellite between $125 and $325 has more or less the same clock and structure.

At $325 a pop (almost a third of some WSOP event buy ins) they're not really the type of satellite value I am after.

Well the 1k events you only get 1k chips, thats even worse!

I am sitting here with Harry in Vegas, here are my issues!!

1) Tournaments of champions, WHAT A JOKE!
2) Coverage by the PAID media outlet, joke!
3) Help for foreign players, joke
4) Rake , joke

WSOP is a basic joke

Does that mean you are not playing any more events Brian?

it means that Harry and myself are going to join forces and try to express our dissatisfaction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I will give back the bracelet?

dont do it baby! just dont do it!!

[DesD]

What I would appreciate, however, are your views ie you the ordinary grass roots players on what questions you would like raised and answered.

So if you have any questions please post them here.

Hi Harry

I think it's fair to start a response to this thread by acknowledging that the WSOP brand is the single most important brand in poker today, and that whether we like or dislike corporate America, there can be little doubt that Harrahs has been a big part of bringing the WSOP brand, and live tournament poker, into the mainstream - in a way that Binions, for all of its history, would have been unable to do.

Right now as you rightly say, the weight of benefit is clearly directed heavily in Harrahs favour, but I would suggest that once the players get their stable in order, then the future under Harrahs could look very bright indeed.

The players bring an incredible amount to the table:-

1) The prize pool.

2) The justification for the involvement of the major advertisers and ESPN.

3) A captive audience for those major advertisers.

4) Essential revenue for Las Vegas - The Airlines / McCarran / The Hotels / Restaurants / Shops / Cabs etc etc.

5) Word of mouth promotion of Las Vegas, in addition to the huge media promotion that the city gets throughout the major part of the tourist season.

6) I wouldn't know where to start in terms of the value of players to the online organisations, but needless to say it is astronomical.

But I would pose my question to you as opposed to Harrahs.  Does Jesse Jones have the gravitas and support to negotiate an appropriate deal for the players?  In my opinion, therein lies the answer to all of your questions.

Good luck with the rest of the series Harry and if you get your 30 minutes with Harrahs, I hope it is with the right people, and that they listen to you.  There is an awful lot to be said for a passionate arguement, and that is what I read in your initial post.

Regards,

Des.

[londonpokergirl]

Well the 1k events you only get 1k chips, thats even worse!




Actually we got 1500 chips for a 1 k event as I believe they have changed
it for all 1k events now

[Royal Flush]

Well the 1k events you only get 1k chips, thats even worse!




Actually we got 1500 chips for a 1 k event as I believe they have changed
it for all 1k events now

I didint know that, still not a lot of play!

[Harry Demetriou]

For everyone's information Jeffrey Pollack has invited me to meet with him along with other players to discuss our concerns.

Current intentions are to collate all the questions raised and then to arrange a meeting with Jeffrey Pollack to discuss them.

So every one please send questions in rather than discuss the points raised.

Below is Jeffrey Pollack's response in The Hendon Mob Forum:

==============================================

Jeffrey Pollack here...

It concerns me that you feel as though you are "being unfairly treated, taken for granted, and financially abused." My top priority is delivering outstanding customer satisfaction for our guests and we are obviously failing with you.

So, I am more than happy to meet with you in person to hear your concerns and suggestions, convey our intentions and goals, and talk through any topic you like. If you know of other players who are unhappy, please feel free to invite them.

You can reach me directly on jplt@harrahs.com to set some time to meet.

I appreciate and value your passion for the World Series of Poker, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Jeffrey

============================================

and my reply...

Your invitation is gratefully received and accepted.

More details to follow via private e-mail.

[sofa----king]

imho

                         H  ...       HIGH
                         O  ...       ORGANISED
                         R  ...       ROLLERS
                         S  ...       SPONSORED
                         E  ...       EVENT



    MAYBEE THIS IS WHAT IT STANDS FOR?

[Harry Demetriou]

For everyone's information Jeffrey Pollack has invited me to meet with him along with other players to discuss our concerns.

Current intentions are to collate all the questions raised and then to arrange a meeting with Jeffrey Pollack to discuss them.

So every one please send questions in rather than discuss the points raised.

Below is Jeffrey Pollack's response in The Hendon Mob Forum:

==============================================

Jeffrey Pollack here...

It concerns me that you feel as though you are "being unfairly treated, taken for granted, and financially abused." My top priority is delivering outstanding customer satisfaction for our guests and we are obviously failing with you.

So, I am more than happy to meet with you in person to hear your concerns and suggestions, convey our intentions and goals, and talk through any topic you like. If you know of other players who are unhappy, please feel free to invite them.

You can reach me directly on jplt@harrahs.com to set some time to meet.

I appreciate and value your passion for the World Series of Poker, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Jeffrey

============================================

and my reply...

Your invitation is gratefully received and accepted.

More details to follow via private e-mail.

[totalise]

harry,

i think you would be a great representative.. as I believe you would have ALL the players best interests at heart, and not just do what is best for the alleged pros.

Hope the interview is of some benefit

[neeko]

Gl luck in your final table of the $2,500 short handed event.

Dont bother showing your cards to the hole cameras - they have not "paid" to see them.

[I, Zimbra]

I'm just an internet player; I've never been to the World Series and so I can't speak about the issue of juice on these events (after all, every freezeout I play online is raked 10% or thereabouts!), but as a fan of the game and an avid viewer of TV programs, I can speak about something that is yet another disturbing trend in the World Series lately, the proliferation of Hold'Em over other poker variations.

In particular, I thought that the $50k HORSE was a great idea when I first heard about it - but of course, it really only makes sense if you then scale up the price tags of some of the other tournaments as well. I assumed that this event was there to 'test the waters' of a higher buy-in event, something more in line with what the $10k price tag of the main event was supposed to be, back in the 1970s. If all went smoothly, there could then be a few more higher buy-in events next year as well, and perhaps a raised-entry price on the Main Event, to bring it in line.

However, that surely doesn't mean that they should completely neglect the variety of events at the lower end of things. Why not have a $5k HORSE as well?

Question: In fact, why is there less variety in this year's selection of events, than ever before?

Looking at this somewhat methodically, I went back and had a look at the schedules for the last few years, starting with 2001, to see how things have changed:

2001:

25 events total

Holdem: 10 events, including 5 No Limit events (40%)
Omaha variations: 6 events (24%)
Stud variations: 6 events (24%)
Draw variations: 2 events (8%)
Mixed Games: 1 event (4%)

Now check 2003, the first 'internet' year:

33 events total

Holdem: 15 events, including 6 No Limit events (46%)
Omaha variations: 7 events (21%)
Stud variations: 5 events (15%)
Draw variations: 2 events (6%)
Mixed Games: 4 events (12%)


It was an unusually good year for mixed events, normally there's just one (The Ladies event in 2003, for example, was a mixed event - half stud, half hold'em). The following year, 2004, had just one mixed event - and in 2005 mixed events were scrapped altogether.

2005, Harrah's have taken over:

39 events total

Holdem: 26 events, including 16 No Limit events (67%)
Omaha variations: 7 events (18%)
Stud variations: 5 events (13%)
Draw variations: 1 event (2%)
Mixed Games: 0 events

A huge hike in the number of Hold'Em games, compared with other forms, and in particular a really big hike in No Limit Hold'Em events!

Now, 2006:

39 events total

Holdem: 28 events, including 19 No Limit events (72%)
Omaha variations: 5 events - [although an extra event seems to have been added]
Stud variations: 4 events
Draw variations: 1 event
Mixed Games: 1 event

================

It's a disturbing trend, for people who like to see variety. People have already remarked upon the WSOP becoming the 'World Series of Hold'Em'; perhaps people won't miss the ace-to-five lowball tourney, but to have three quarters of the games being Hold'Em strikes me as a waste of a good opportunity.

When I was in Vegas, last month, I heard one well known Pro talk wistfully of the SHOE tournaments he used to play in, amongst other laments. This was also the first time I'd heard that the HORSE tournament at this year's Series would have a final table of No Limit Hold'Em, ostensibly because ESPN feared the viewers at home would not be able to follow the action of a game like HORSE.

I was utterly gobsmacked.

When I heard about the $50K HORSE for the first time, I'd really been looking forward to it - mainly because I knew that the elevated price tag would create a glittering field of the 'big names', and that's an exciting prospect to a poker fan.

The point is, that I can see these guys play Hold'Em any time; our screens are saturated with it. There's only so many times I can watch A-K vs Q-Q before I go, "Yeah, well, so what?" and with the HORSE tournament I was looking forward to something different.

At this point I have to hope - probably in vain - that cameras captured some of the action from the first two days. If ESPN had been smart, they'd have had 'featured tables' throughout the tournament, just as they do for the Main Event. I hope they did, but something tells me they're only going to show the final table.

Even if they hadn't wanted to show the Day One and Day Two footage as part of their regular broadcast, (so as not to alienate the casual viewer who would obviously be put off by the complexity of the play, switching from one variation to another, and switch off in their droves - God forbid ESPN should actually give this thing a chance!) they could have sold it as a DVD or something, for those of us who want to see HORSE and not Hold'Em.

To me, it seems a great waste of a real opportunity.

[NoflopsHomer]

 


The WSOP final tables on TV that aren't Hold'Em are a godsend frankly...

[matt674]

I'm just an internet player; I've never been to the World Series and so I can't speak about the issue of juice on these events (after all, every freezeout I play online is raked 10% or thereabouts!), but as a fan of the game and an avid viewer of TV programs, I can speak about something that is yet another disturbing trend in the World Series lately, the proliferation of Hold'Em over other poker variations.

In particular, I thought that the $50k HORSE was a great idea when I first heard about it - but of course, it really only makes sense if you then scale up the price tags of some of the other tournaments as well. I assumed that this event was there to 'test the waters' of a higher buy-in event, something more in line with what the $10k price tag of the main event was supposed to be, back in the 1970s. If all went smoothly, there could then be a few more higher buy-in events next year as well, and perhaps a raised-entry price on the Main Event, to bring it in line.

However, that surely doesn't mean that they should completely neglect the variety of events at the lower end of things. Why not have a $5k HORSE as well?

Question: In fact, why is there less variety in this year's selection of events, than ever before?

Looking at this somewhat methodically, I went back and had a look at the schedules for the last few years, starting with 2001, to see how things have changed:

2001:

25 events total

Holdem: 10 events, including 5 No Limit events (40%)
Omaha variations: 6 events (24%)
Stud variations: 6 events (24%)
Draw variations: 2 events (8%)
Mixed Games: 1 event (4%)

Now check 2003, the first 'internet' year:

33 events total

Holdem: 15 events, including 6 No Limit events (46%)
Omaha variations: 7 events (21%)
Stud variations: 5 events (15%)
Draw variations: 2 events (6%)
Mixed Games: 4 events (12%)


It was an unusually good year for mixed events, normally there's just one (The Ladies event in 2003, for example, was a mixed event - half stud, half hold'em). The following year, 2004, had just one mixed event - and in 2005 mixed events were scrapped altogether.

2005, Harrah's have taken over:

39 events total

Holdem: 26 events, including 16 No Limit events (67%)
Omaha variations: 7 events (18%)
Stud variations: 5 events (13%)
Draw variations: 1 event (2%)
Mixed Games: 0 events

A huge hike in the number of Hold'Em games, compared with other forms, and in particular a really big hike in No Limit Hold'Em events!

Now, 2006:

39 events total

Holdem: 28 events, including 19 No Limit events (72%)
Omaha variations: 5 events - [although an extra event seems to have been added]
Stud variations: 4 events
Draw variations: 1 event
Mixed Games: 1 event

================

It's a disturbing trend, for people who like to see variety. People have already remarked upon the WSOP becoming the 'World Series of Hold'Em'; perhaps people won't miss the ace-to-five lowball tourney, but to have three quarters of the games being Hold'Em strikes me as a waste of a good opportunity.

When I was in Vegas, last month, I heard one well known Pro talk wistfully of the SHOE tournaments he used to play in, amongst other laments. This was also the first time I'd heard that the HORSE tournament at this year's Series would have a final table of No Limit Hold'Em, ostensibly because ESPN feared the viewers at home would not be able to follow the action of a game like HORSE.

I was utterly gobsmacked.

When I heard about the $50K HORSE for the first time, I'd really been looking forward to it - mainly because I knew that the elevated price tag would create a glittering field of the 'big names', and that's an exciting prospect to a poker fan.

The point is, that I can see these guys play Hold'Em any time; our screens are saturated with it. There's only so many times I can watch A-K vs Q-Q before I go, "Yeah, well, so what?" and with the HORSE tournament I was looking forward to something different.

At this point I have to hope - probably in vain - that cameras captured some of the action from the first two days. If ESPN had been smart, they'd have had 'featured tables' throughout the tournament, just as they do for the Main Event. I hope they did, but something tells me they're only going to show the final table.

Even if they hadn't wanted to show the Day One and Day Two footage as part of their regular broadcast, (so as not to alienate the casual viewer who would obviously be put off by the complexity of the play, switching from one variation to another, and switch off in their droves - God forbid ESPN should actually give this thing a chance!) they could have sold it as a DVD or something, for those of us who want to see HORSE and not Hold'Em.

To me, it seems a great waste of a real opportunity.

There are 44 official events this year as there are 5x$1000 n/l holdem event taking place alongside the main event.

Just to boost your hold'em percentage a bit higher!!