is daniel negreanu right or is he a right muppet

[WelshFish]

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?

[gatso]

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

[DaveShoelace]

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.

[thetank]

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

PPM - I CAN'T SEE MORE THAN 50 PEOPLE BUYING INTO A $100,000 TOURNAMENT.

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)

[TheChipPrince]

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

[kinboshi]

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.

[celtic]

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.

[DaveShoelace]

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

[AndrewT]

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.

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.

[celtic]

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

[geeforce1]

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.

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.

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

[AndrewT]

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

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.

[celtic]

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?

[AndrewT]

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.

[boldie]

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

PPM - I CAN'T SEE MORE THAN 50 PEOPLE BUYING INTO A $100,000 TOURNAMENT.

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)

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.