Is The Explosion A Pain?
i wonder if "the pros" sometimes find this recent explosion annoying?
imagine you've been playing in the world series for 15, 20 years, or more...you got there before there were 27 million different websites with strategies spelled out (basic as they may be), or 3 new books appearing in chapters everyday. and most everyone playing at the series is in the same boat (aside from the celebs).
then things change. attendance doubles...triples...before you know it, it's not the elite, top players competing against each other. people who have been playing for a year, at the same table as brunson...busting out brunson...
sure, more people means more prize money. and more inexperienced players means a better shot at more money. maybe not.
maybe it's just annoying.
imagine you've been playing in the world series for 15, 20 years, or more...you got there before there were 27 million different websites with strategies spelled out (basic as they may be), or 3 new books appearing in chapters everyday. and most everyone playing at the series is in the same boat (aside from the celebs).
then things change. attendance doubles...triples...before you know it, it's not the elite, top players competing against each other. people who have been playing for a year, at the same table as brunson...busting out brunson...
sure, more people means more prize money. and more inexperienced players means a better shot at more money. maybe not.
maybe it's just annoying.
Comments
Of course the online sites would still send hundreds.
This precisely nails why I *loooooooooooooove* the poker explosion. (Well, sans the "maybe not".) 8)
I also remember hearing a nice use of "literally" related to this. Something the the effect that the popularity of poker has literally exploded across the country.
Fire in the hole!
ScottyZ
I'll bet they will give serious thought to something like this. Simply extending the duration of the tournament would be another option. (Three day one's?)
Then you know there is mad hostility towards them because of Moneymaker, who the pro's probably see as a "paper champ" and don't consider legitimate, because he was not a high-stakes gambler.
Chad likened the event to a lottery now. I'd be interested to hear waht Doyle thinks about all this - obviously higher purses are great (this year's winner get 5 Million), but if another "internet geek" wins again, and then again next year - I'm sure the pro's won't like it.
It will be interesting to see where this goes. Maybe they limit the field, have seedings or rankings, or even split it into groups. I don't know about that though - the best part of the WSOP is that anyone can enter and anyone can win. Changing that would be wrong.
Still - as a traditionalist who learned to play with my Dad, and honed my skills in pool-halls and back-rooms, I hate to think that Poker is a flavour of the month. Being a poker player used to imply something about a person. Even knowing where a game was, meant that you were part of a underground scene, a special group. The internet boom, and popularity explosion has kind of killed that vibe - which is probably reflected at the WSOP this year.
In any community (e.g. poker, investing, weight training, tennis, whatever...) you have a small percentage of superior players, a large chunk of average players and a small percentage of horrible players. The total number of participants may increase, but the percentages don't change much.
The top guys will continue to win regardless of the volume of players. It's not like the number of competitions flatlines; just like the explosion in interest there will be a similar explosion in the number of tourneys. After all, we live in a capitalistic society - the supply will rise to meet the demand.
The popularity of poker ensures more competition for the top dogs to earn a living off the average and the horrible in increasingly abundant competitions. That's a big benefit.
Stock investing exploded through the 70s, 80s and 90s. By the turn of the century, everybody and their uncle was trading stock online. Guess what - the good investors consistently made money while the bulk of the "average" were destroyed in '74-75, '87-88, and '00-'02. Repeatedly. The number of "investors" increased, but it really made no difference to the successful ones.
The same thing happened in tennis. We have more tournaments, players, spectators and prize money today than we did 30-40 years ago.
Ditto for a lot of industries, sports, etc.
IMHO, Jim