I think it's great for poker. But, in a way, I don't think it's so good for the tournament. It used to be that the winner of the WSOP was considered the world champ. But with such a huge field, there is SO MUCH luck involved that I don't really think that you can think of it that way any more.
I was talking about this over beer and wings a few weeks ago. Basically, with the tournament so big, I figure that:
1. You could be the VERY BEST player in the world
2. You could enter the tournament every year for your whole career (say, 50 years), and be the VERY BEST player every time you enter
3. You would still only have about a 10% chance of winning the tournament some time during those 50 years.
If the very best player in the world can play it every year for his whole life, and will very probably never win it, can we really call it the world championship? With the field that big, luck just plays too much of a factor. I wonder when the next time a big named, well known, professional player will win the tournament. It could be a long, long time.
But he would be the best poker player in the world since he beat everyone in the field. It would be like if they didn't say that the LA Lakers (who will win this year ) aren't the best team because there were too many teams in the league.
But on the other side, is Fossilman the best player in the world? I like probably most people have never heard of him before the WSOP so how could this guy be the best in the world.
I happen to like the large field as it is very entertaining and it brings a lot of excitement to the game. As well, the person who wins will have truly played exceptionally well over the 5 days.
But he would be the best poker player in the world since he beat everyone in the field.
No. Just because he beat the entire field does not mean that he is the best. Poker is a game where the better players win in the LONG TERM. In the short term anything can happen. A 5 day tournament is certainly nowhere NEAR the long term.
You can't compare it to something like a 7-game series in basketball, where skill is most likely to determine the final result (and luck will play some role, particularly if the skills are close). In 5 days of poker, luck will determine almost your entire result, and your skill will play a very small role. This is why you are supposed to analyze your poker results over thousands of hours, and not one week. We have all been at a table where one of the worst players at the table left with most of the chips. Over the long term, this bad player will lose it all back and more, but over 5 days of poker this player could very easily be up a lot.
I would estimate that the very best player in the tournament has MAYBE a 1 in 500 chance of winning the WSOP main event. Now, this is quite good... it basically means that he has more than 5 times the chance of winning as the "average" entrant. It also means that we will almost certainly NEVER see the best player win the WSOP main event again in our lifetimes.
DJP wrote:
With all the press and hype about internet winners getting in on satellites, I say it's 3500 next year.
any chance hitting 5000+ ?
Anyone want to set the over/under line at 3500.... I'll put $50 on the over!!
Yeah 3500 is WAY too low IMO. That is only 900 more than they had this year. I am not saying that it will keep tripling every year but I think that 5000 is a more reasonable line.
The huge numbers are not the most important development about this year's event, IMO - but rather the fact that so many of the field entrants, were very inexperienced internet players, who hadn't played in any live events before.
Now I am not slagging all internet players, obviously many of these guys and girls know their shit and have the skills to win. But with so many players winning their way to the WSOP, and not being experienced "high-stakes" gamblers, which is what the field used to be mostly made up of back in the day, the event has changed.
I heard that many of the pro's were non too plussed about these developments. They did not like the fact that their so called "World Championships" had been turned into a lottery-type event, so much different than its slightly seedy past.
Obviously, as a purely amateur player, I would absolutly love to win my way to the WSOP through an internet site, and take my chances in that field, but I can also see where some of these guys are coming from. Having Doyle Brunson and Jonnie Chan sitting next to two guys who have never heard of them, and then getting knocked out by them on some lucky, ridiculous draw, kind of kills some of the mystique. But I guess it also fits right into the "anyone can enter, anyone can win" mystique. It's an interesting connundrum.
I would love to hear what dave thinks about all this.
Clearly, this sentiment was prevalent in the run in between Annie Duke and our man Dave. She totally wrote him off as "just another internet geek" which was dumb of her because she got sent to the rails just like the rest of them...
Man it would surely be a tournament of survival. I think it would be great if it turned into a two week event. Plus a prize pool of $42,000,000 would just be insane!! :shock:
But he would be the best poker player in the world since he beat everyone in the field.
Well I disagree.
Who is the 'Best Player'? Do we only look at the last 10 years or the entire lifespan of a player's winnings? Or championship wins? You will never get everyone to agree who the best player is. Is it past results or who is playing the 'best' at the moment? In your statement, you define it as the last winner of the WSOP.
Two questions:
Who's the best NFL football team?
Who's the best Poker player?
Both of those questions would get many different answers.
Two other questions:
Who's the current Super Bowl Champions?
Who's the current World Series of Poker winner?
Two specific answers. Don't try and join 'best player' to the winner of the WSOP, it just doesn't work.
But he would be the best poker player in the world since he beat everyone in the field.
Well I disagree.
Who is the 'Best Player'? Do we only look at the last 10 years or the entire lifespan of a player's winnings? Or championship wins? You will never get everyone to agree who the best player is. Is it past results or who is playing the 'best' at the moment? In your statement, you define it as the last winner of the WSOP.
Two questions:
Who's the best NFL football team?
Who's the best Poker player?
Both of those questions would get many different answers.
Two other questions:
Who's the current Super Bowl Champions?
Who's the current World Series of Poker winner?
Two specific answers. Don't try and join 'best player' to the winner of the WSOP, it just doesn't work.
Well, I'd say that the "best player" would be the player with the highest tournament equity (EV, whatever) at the beginning of the tournament (this might not even be the player with the most chance of winning). Of course, this is impossible to calculate so we have no way of knowing who it is. Certainly, it has very little to do with who actually wins the tournament.
Keeping the same format they currently have and the facilities at the Rio, the WSOP could accommodate up to 12,000 entrants (+alternates). The tournament would take 11 days to run.
Day 1: 1-3000
Day 2: 3001-6000
Day 3: 6001-9000
Day 4: 9001-12000
Day 5: Day 1&2 survivors
Day 6: Day 3&4 survivors
Day 7: Combine all remaining
Day 8: Play to ~150
Day 9: play down to 36
Day 10: play down to 9
Day 11: Final Table
Harras makes almost $5 Million and the Prize pool would approach $115 million. 1st place should walk away with over $20 million.
Even if the growth continues at its current ridiculous pace, it will take a couple of years for the tournament to get that big (even if it triples AGAIN next year it would "only" be 7800 people)
Personally, I think that that would be asking a lot, but it could easily double in size. I am gonna guess 5000 people. Should take 3 or 4 years to hit 12000 entrants. If it does keep growing at that pace they are going to have to do something about the format... maybe up the buy-in to 25k or even 100k (10k single table satellite... hows that for a sit-n-go????) This tournament started, what, 30 years ago?? 10k was A LOT more money then than it is now.
Then again, wtf do I know? Who would have guessed 2600 for this year? Still, it can't just grow exponentially... at least not for long.
I think that there will have to be a major format change. A freezeout tournament for 5000+ people is just not going to be very practical. For a massive freezeout, the blinds will have to be microscopic to have anything close to a skill-based outcome. Round 1, initial stacks $10,000, blinds a cent, and a ha'penny. Shuffle up and deal!
(Uh-oh. That's probably a can of worms in itself. Please ignore that last bit. Moneymaker and Raymer are good players.)
Besides just increasing the buy-in, there are several ways to give more people a shot. Perhaps they could put the "S" in WSOP, and make it into a series. Almost like a mixture of the WPT and a true freezeout.
They could have something like one WSOP "preliminary" tournament per month (or whatever) with cash prizes, but a certain amount of the prize pool going to the top X players also getting seats in the WSOP "finals". It's sort of like a mixuture of all three of the usual tournament formats: shootout, satellite, and freezeout.
Kind of like the regular season, and the playoffs. However, in this case, the regular season is important too, because the tournaments still have cash prizes.
One downside to this sort of format is that there's nothing really preventing the same player from trying to qualify in all 12 monthly (for example) preliminary tournaments. And you basically get the same problem you had before in that you might get 10,000 players showing up for preliminary tournament #1. You also get away from the "open" nature of the WSOP... someone that can afford the 12 preliminary tournaments has a better shot than someone with limited funds. (But let's not kid ourselves here, even as "little" as $10K is a constraint that prevents many players from enetering as it is.)
Well, in truth, I don't think there will be much to worry about. Trust me on this one. Next year, Poker is out, Jai-Alai is in baby.
If it does triple again next year to 7500+ entrants they are going to need like 15 days to complete it. I agree that they should up the buy-in. Seeing how inflation has risen like 8 times since the 1940s, they should at least make the buy-in $50,000. A $50,000 buy-in would just be crazy to watch!! :shock:
maybe up the buy-in to 25k or even 100k (10k single table satellite... hows that for a sit-n-go????) This tournament started, what, 30 years ago?? 10k was A LOT more money then than it is now.
If it does triple again next year to 7500+ entrants they are going to need like 15 days to complete it. I agree that they should up the buy-in. Seeing how inflation has risen like 8 times since the 1940s, they should at least make the buy-in $50,000. A $50,000 buy-in would just be crazy to watch!! :shock:
Comments
btw i borrowed the poll from Room :shock:
I was talking about this over beer and wings a few weeks ago. Basically, with the tournament so big, I figure that:
1. You could be the VERY BEST player in the world
2. You could enter the tournament every year for your whole career (say, 50 years), and be the VERY BEST player every time you enter
3. You would still only have about a 10% chance of winning the tournament some time during those 50 years.
If the very best player in the world can play it every year for his whole life, and will very probably never win it, can we really call it the world championship? With the field that big, luck just plays too much of a factor. I wonder when the next time a big named, well known, professional player will win the tournament. It could be a long, long time.
Keith
But on the other side, is Fossilman the best player in the world? I like probably most people have never heard of him before the WSOP so how could this guy be the best in the world.
I happen to like the large field as it is very entertaining and it brings a lot of excitement to the game. As well, the person who wins will have truly played exceptionally well over the 5 days.
No. Just because he beat the entire field does not mean that he is the best. Poker is a game where the better players win in the LONG TERM. In the short term anything can happen. A 5 day tournament is certainly nowhere NEAR the long term.
You can't compare it to something like a 7-game series in basketball, where skill is most likely to determine the final result (and luck will play some role, particularly if the skills are close). In 5 days of poker, luck will determine almost your entire result, and your skill will play a very small role. This is why you are supposed to analyze your poker results over thousands of hours, and not one week. We have all been at a table where one of the worst players at the table left with most of the chips. Over the long term, this bad player will lose it all back and more, but over 5 days of poker this player could very easily be up a lot.
I would estimate that the very best player in the tournament has MAYBE a 1 in 500 chance of winning the WSOP main event. Now, this is quite good... it basically means that he has more than 5 times the chance of winning as the "average" entrant. It also means that we will almost certainly NEVER see the best player win the WSOP main event again in our lifetimes.
Keith
any chance hitting 5000+ ? :shock:
Anyone want to set the over/under line at 3500.... I'll put $50 on the over!!
Yeah 3500 is WAY too low IMO. That is only 900 more than they had this year. I am not saying that it will keep tripling every year but I think that 5000 is a more reasonable line.
Keith
Now I am not slagging all internet players, obviously many of these guys and girls know their shit and have the skills to win. But with so many players winning their way to the WSOP, and not being experienced "high-stakes" gamblers, which is what the field used to be mostly made up of back in the day, the event has changed.
I heard that many of the pro's were non too plussed about these developments. They did not like the fact that their so called "World Championships" had been turned into a lottery-type event, so much different than its slightly seedy past.
Obviously, as a purely amateur player, I would absolutly love to win my way to the WSOP through an internet site, and take my chances in that field, but I can also see where some of these guys are coming from. Having Doyle Brunson and Jonnie Chan sitting next to two guys who have never heard of them, and then getting knocked out by them on some lucky, ridiculous draw, kind of kills some of the mystique. But I guess it also fits right into the "anyone can enter, anyone can win" mystique. It's an interesting connundrum.
I would love to hear what dave thinks about all this.
Clearly, this sentiment was prevalent in the run in between Annie Duke and our man Dave. She totally wrote him off as "just another internet geek" which was dumb of her because she got sent to the rails just like the rest of them...
Could you imagine!! They would have to break day 1 alone into like 4 days :?
how bout break day 1 into 1 full week
and make it a 2 week final event
ya have to go thru 4200+ players and lotsa days of sleep deprivatation to be crown the next Champ LOL
i like it :shock:
Well I disagree.
Who is the 'Best Player'? Do we only look at the last 10 years or the entire lifespan of a player's winnings? Or championship wins? You will never get everyone to agree who the best player is. Is it past results or who is playing the 'best' at the moment? In your statement, you define it as the last winner of the WSOP.
Two questions:
Who's the best NFL football team?
Who's the best Poker player?
Both of those questions would get many different answers.
Two other questions:
Who's the current Super Bowl Champions?
Who's the current World Series of Poker winner?
Two specific answers. Don't try and join 'best player' to the winner of the WSOP, it just doesn't work.
Well, I'd say that the "best player" would be the player with the highest tournament equity (EV, whatever) at the beginning of the tournament (this might not even be the player with the most chance of winning). Of course, this is impossible to calculate so we have no way of knowing who it is. Certainly, it has very little to do with who actually wins the tournament.
Keith
Day 1: 1-3000
Day 2: 3001-6000
Day 3: 6001-9000
Day 4: 9001-12000
Day 5: Day 1&2 survivors
Day 6: Day 3&4 survivors
Day 7: Combine all remaining
Day 8: Play to ~150
Day 9: play down to 36
Day 10: play down to 9
Day 11: Final Table
Harras makes almost $5 Million and the Prize pool would approach $115 million. 1st place should walk away with over $20 million.
Where do I sign up?
$20.0 M
*wonders* how much buy-in would be? still at 10K? :shock:
Personally, I think that that would be asking a lot, but it could easily double in size. I am gonna guess 5000 people. Should take 3 or 4 years to hit 12000 entrants. If it does keep growing at that pace they are going to have to do something about the format... maybe up the buy-in to 25k or even 100k (10k single table satellite... hows that for a sit-n-go????) This tournament started, what, 30 years ago?? 10k was A LOT more money then than it is now.
Then again, wtf do I know? Who would have guessed 2600 for this year? Still, it can't just grow exponentially... at least not for long.
Keith
(Uh-oh. That's probably a can of worms in itself. Please ignore that last bit. Moneymaker and Raymer are good players.)
Besides just increasing the buy-in, there are several ways to give more people a shot. Perhaps they could put the "S" in WSOP, and make it into a series. Almost like a mixture of the WPT and a true freezeout.
They could have something like one WSOP "preliminary" tournament per month (or whatever) with cash prizes, but a certain amount of the prize pool going to the top X players also getting seats in the WSOP "finals". It's sort of like a mixuture of all three of the usual tournament formats: shootout, satellite, and freezeout.
Kind of like the regular season, and the playoffs. However, in this case, the regular season is important too, because the tournaments still have cash prizes.
One downside to this sort of format is that there's nothing really preventing the same player from trying to qualify in all 12 monthly (for example) preliminary tournaments. And you basically get the same problem you had before in that you might get 10,000 players showing up for preliminary tournament #1. You also get away from the "open" nature of the WSOP... someone that can afford the 12 preliminary tournaments has a better shot than someone with limited funds. (But let's not kid ourselves here, even as "little" as $10K is a constraint that prevents many players from enetering as it is.)
Well, in truth, I don't think there will be much to worry about. Trust me on this one. Next year, Poker is out, Jai-Alai is in baby.
ScottyZ
100K is too much
cant afford that
what's Jai-Alai? :shock: :shock: :shock:
help
cant afford that
That game with the scoops and ball where you throw it at the wall. It was a funny Jackass skit once
hmmm what's fun about that? :shock:
But it is a very dangerous game from what I have heard/seen.
more dangerous than the monkey with laserbeams :shock: :shock: :shock: