The changing face of poker, but the same old traditions

The changing face of poker, but the same old traditions

Poker has changed and grown beyond all expectation. And yet, certain aspects that perhaps need to change, seemed to be looked at like some sort of tradition that should never be touched. Lets take the WSOP for example.

The entry fees and structures have stayed stagnant for decades. Why is this? Some may be of the view that nothing is broken and therefore, nothing needs to change. But can you seriously look at the WSOP or poker in general and come to that conclusion?

At present, everything may seem fine. Numbers are increasing, and everyone in the industry is benefiting from the boom. Did I say everyone? Well…perhaps not everyone. In fact, the players themselves are the ones missing out when it comes to the WSOP? And by this, I do not refer the small minority that have been rewarded through lucrative sponsorship deals. I refer to the vast majority of players that form the backbone of the industry. Without them, poker or the WSOP would not be where they are today. And yet, it is these players who are being ignored.

This is not just my own personal view, this view is shared my almost everyone I speak to. And the biggest gripe coming from the masses? The lack of play that the small starting-stacks at the WSOP offer. All the players want more chips and more time to play poker with. Irrespective of the fact that a whole lot of gambling goes on during any event, it should not be enforced gambling. “Tradition”, should not be the reason why players are forced to play speed poker in the early rounds. If they want to gamble against the odds, that’s fine. But being forced to gamble against the odds, is not what poker should be about. But it could well be what will damage the reputation of the WSOP.

Over the last year or two, mainly thanks to Tournament Director Jack McClelland and the Bellagio, this issue has been identified, understood and rectified. Slowly but surely, more and more events around the US began increasing starting-stacks and extending levels. Finally, it seemed that player’s opinions counted. And lets face it, the opinions and needs of players is exactly why so many people within the industry have tried to put together various poker associations. After all, poker belongs to the players. They are the ones who part with their money and who make sure that the game is breaking records by the day. They should be controlling it. But the problem is, poker is now big business. And as such, the people hosting big events, will always be influenced or even directed solely by the economics involved.

In the case of the WSOP and Harrah’s for example, its understandable if their main focus is financial. After all, they took an initial risk when they took over the WSOP, why not reap the rewards while poker is booming?. But on the other hand, Harrah’s have also recognized the need of input by the players. Credit then must go to them for at least appointing a panel of players to provide a voice. I don’t personally know what changes the panel suggested, what changes are yet to be implemented or if any viable ones have been rejected; but perhaps it will do no harm to put a few more forward.

At present, the WSOP and its position as the most prestigious event on the calendar, ensures that it holds all the aces. But as players, we all know that aces often get cracked. Therefore, Harrah’s really should be aware that this situation could change. In fact, after just one event at this years WSOP, the rumblings had already begun. But just how serious are these?

When players from all over world, start to question the value of the WSOP, then something is seriously wrong. These people have come along way to play poker at the WSOP. And yet, they are faced with having to make a decision as to where they should play! Why? Because other daily events in Las Vegas are offering more chips, more play and better value. Unthinkable is it not, to have the premiere of all events, offering the least play and therefore, least value for money? Some might say that the value comes from the pile of “dead money” that is brought in from novices, bad players or recreational players attracted to the WSOP. Others will point to the prestige of the WSOP and conclude that they have no choice but to play the WSOP. Perhaps that was, and still is the case for the masses. However, the rumblings have begun, the warning signs are clearly there. So how long will this continue to be the case and what are the options?

Negatives of the WSOP and poker tournaments

Firstly, lets begin with the buy-ins and the structures. In the mind of many players, these need to change above all else. And judging by the way many are opting to play at the Bellagio rather than the WSOP, this must change soon. Harrah’s simply cannot sit back and allow the prestige and standing of the WSOP to be the main reason why players attend the event. Players should relish the thought of being able to play poker at the WSOP. Sadly, that is not the case. In fact, the opposite is nearer the truth. But to be fair to Harrah’s, they do face a monumental task in coping with the increasing numbers as well as trying to keep with the traditions of the WSOP and poker in general. .

The obvious change that many opt for is to simply increase the entry fees. In the case of the main event, there are numerous reasons given. From driving down the numbers, to keeping in tack its credibility and standing as the “Big One”. But perhaps the biggest reason for suggesting such increases, is simply down to starting-stacks; bigger buy-in = more chips = more play. The obvious objections to entry fee increases will come from views that it will drive away the small players. However, this does not seem to hold water with many players. But even more importantly, we must not forget that we are talking about the big one here, the premier of poker; the WSOP. These events need to reflect just how special the WSOP is, not how different it is in terms denying players what they get elsewhere.

But even if the thought of increasing the buy-ins brings fear to the hosts of the WSOP, could they not at least increase the size of starting-stacks? Would this go too far against the “traditions” of the WSOP? Does giving more play to players, also create a fear that events take too long to complete? If so, then perhaps the only option is to increase the entry fees. Again, this may go against tradition, but it’s a flawed tradition that needs to change.

That aside, the WSOP has turned up with some changes. Admittedly, some of these have not gone down too well with some of the players. However, on the positive side, and as the recent chapter concerning Harry Demetriou illustrates, Harrah’s seem ready to listen. Perhaps most of the issues that have arisen, have been mostly down to lack of communication and understanding. If so, then the time has come for this to be rectified. So what can we do?

Well….I think it’s become clear to those running the WSOP that players cannot be ignored any longer. However, as players, we must provide them with the right input. That can only come through a player’s association. However, even though the efforts of Jesse Jones and the formation of the World Poker Association (WPA), may pay dividends in the future; that does not mean we cannot begin right now. Therefore, I am included my two pence worth and hope to generate some reaction or even direction from the thoughts of others. Feel free to revue some of these suggestions and to include your own ideas. Perhaps we can then go to Harrah’s and other tournament directors with more input. So here goes. …

Back to the subject of tradition, why has poker not changed in any great depth since the tournament was first devised? Is the present tournament format so good that it doesn’t need any changes? Is it so perfect that we never hear complaints from players? The truth is, although it’s an impossible task to please all the players, the current method cannot help but cause dissatisfaction and frustration. Perhaps it’s time a new format or method of determining a winner was found. But first, lets look at how the present format goes about it.

With tournament poker, players accept that the luck factor is simply part and parcel of the game. However, some of the luck associated with the game, has nothing to do with A-K v Q-QA or any other coin flip. I refer to the elements of luck brought into the game due to the format.

For example, the breaking of tables brings in a luck element that cannot be avoided. This can sometimes have a negative effect to player’s chances. In some cases, perhaps when a player is low-stacked in the late stages of an event, it can prove extremely damaging. No doubt many players can recall situations when, having posted both blinds, they find themselves on the big blind again after a break of tables. This cannot be right. And yet, players must accept it because it’s down to the luck of the draw. But why should any outside luck element have an impact on a players chances? And why should players be forced to accept ANYTHING that increases the luck factor in the game? Sadly, with the present format, they have no choice because it creates unjust situations that cannot be avoided.

Moving on, lets look at other luck elements within the game as it currently stands. One aspect that is accepted without so much as a second thought, is the uneven distribution of chips during the late stages of events. At first glance, this is not even an issue amongst players. How can it be when there is no other option within the current format? But just what are the implications of this? Again, no doubt that we have all witnessed situations in which the chip distribution leaves some players at a great disadvantage. After all, I have seen it many times when the one of the last three tables for example has more than 50% of the chips in play. But again, this simply cannot be avoided because the current format does not allow any other option.

Moving away from the elements of luck, we have the frustrating aspects of poker. Again these are understood and accepted by players as being part and parcel of the game. Hand-for-hand is a prime example. The game can grind to halt during this stage as we see dramatic reduction in the number of hands being dealt. And though it may not seem as playing a great importance to a player’s chances, just wait until you are short-stacked and the clock ticks away to another increase in blinds and antes. But again, as players, we understand and accept this as an unavoidable part of the game.

Finally, lets focus a little on the work involved for the people who actually run these events. As players get eliminated from events, all the staff must coordinate the balancing of tables. This actually entails a lot effort to ensure that it runs smoothly. But however well done this is, it still creates frustrating delays to the game.

In trying to find possible solutions or options to the current format, it’s clear that a dramatic change is required.

Shootout 5; A possible solution?

As the name suggests, this option looks at focusing on the shootout format that has become more popular in recent times. When speaking to players, it soon became clear that many actually looked forward to the format as it required a lot less commitment of time to an event. And yet, are these are hardly on offer on the tournament trail. It’s understandable if the present format takes up table or dealer time. Also, there is a major drawback to shootouts being taken seriously due to the fact that only one player advances. The fact is, not many players would appreciate trying to defy the 10-1 odds on a regular basis. But what if the odds were dramatically reduced? What if four or even five players from each table advanced? What if it were an even money shot to go though to the next round?

Format guide and possible rules

1. Five players to advance from each table

2. Alternates are not possible within this format but late entries would be allowed if a full table was added.

3. Flexibility will be required within the rules to allow for situations in which the numbers must be adjusted after the first round. The main object of the format is to allow a 50% advancement of players from each table. However, there will be many instances when the second round will generate an uneven number or required players. In such cases, it can be adapted to create a fair, even if not ideal solution.

Example:

Even if the event should begin with an ideal number of tables, a situation may arise when two or even three players may be eliminated on the same hand, and such, cause an uneven number of players advancing through to the next round. In such cases, as well as those that begin with an uneven number of tables to begin with, an adjustment will be required. This will entail having one, two or perhaps more tables, with less players than other tables. However, this will be done in a fair manner by ensuring that the odds for each player to advance will be kept equal. Example: ten players, five advance - eight players, four advance.

It will be important to note that when the money round is played; all tables will need to start with the same number of players.

By playing to this format, many of the negatives that are created by the present format will totally eradicated. No more hand-for-hand as the finishing position of players will be determined by the position they finish at their table.

No breaking tables and all the advantages that this brings to players and staff alike.

It will eradicate any deliberate slow play from players looking to advance.

Benefits of Shootout - 5

If the WSOP does decide to make changes as far as starting-stacks are concerned, there may be a fear that the extra chips will cause the tournaments to drag. By playing to the Shootout format, it will in fact speed up events dramatically. This will come about from the many time saving features that the Shootout format brings. Furthermore, as players are eliminated and table become short-handed, it’s natural for players to become more adventurous with their play. This will again help to speed up the events. But very importantly, the extra action that short-handed play brings, will be at the discretion of players and not forced through other factors such as a quick clock or short starting-stacks.

We then have the never-ending debate concerning the skill and luck factors of the game. It’s clear at least that the Shootout format will dramatically decrease outside luck factors that breaking tables causes. But just as important, it will increase the skill factor that short-handed play brings.

We then come to the chip distribution amongst remaining players. As pointed out earlier, the present format ensures that there will be a wide gap between chip leader and average chips. With the Shootout format, although a gap is certain to be created, it will be dramatically reduced. Furthermore, another option is for players to be seeded after the first round. This will be done by chip count and ensure that distribution of chips will be more even. Apart from ensuring that the big stacks will be kept apart, it again reduces a luck factor of two very big stacks having a showdown and creating one monster stack.

If the Shootout format was implemented for the WSOP, then ESPN could have a field day. Rather than just have featured tables that shows sections of the main event, the Shootout format with give them an end result that will captivate viewers.

If given a chance, this format may well prove to become immensely popular with players as well as tournament staff.

Lets hear your thoughts players.

Peter Costa