The question is: "Does the WSOP really determine the World Champion?". The answer is yes, by definition, or by general agreement rather - the WSOP is pokers world championship event. This is how it started out, this is how its become known, and therefore the winner is the world champion. This is a completely different thing to the 'best player in the world' however. The former is by definition. The latter is entirely subjective. Certainly you could come up with a million better ways to judge who is the best player in any particular year, but the WSOP isn't trying to do this. Its just a big event where the winner happens to be granted the title world champion.
And who the hell cares who some convoluted ranking system determines to be the best player anyway? There'll always be disagreements. No system can be perfect for any sport, and with the amount of luck involved in poker its going to be pretty much meaningless no matter how complex the scoring is. There may hypothetically be someone who is regarded by all without doubt to be the greatest player in the world, but if he's running bad no ranking system is going to reflect that.
Better surely to just accept that the winner of the WSOP is the world champion, and attach as much or as little importance to that as you wish.
As for increasing the buyin, some of the arguments for doing so I just dont get. As was said above, one of the best things about the WSOP is that anyone can enter, unlike in just about every other major sporting event. Its true that in relation to inflation the buyin has in effect come down over the years, but in tandem (and partly because of this) the number of entrants has increased. So now more than ever before it really is open to anyone. I'd say this is a good thing. As far as its effects on the game as a spectator sport, I think its fascinating to watch the pros go up against your regular guy. There was a very interesting video interview of Annie Duke shortly after she went out (www.gutshot.co.uk) where she seemed a little in shock at some of the plays people were making. It made me smile to think that the top pros were now also having to deal with the maniacs that we face every day online.
Having said that, I really dont think its become a crapshoot at all. If you look at the 80 or so players left in, theres an impressive showing of top players still there. And I'm sticking with a prediction I made before it started that a name player is going to win it this year. Hopefully a European - my money's on Julian Gardner or Marcel Luske.
I would also add another theory of mine.
The reason I believe a lot of pros go out is overconfidence. Some of them come in the same way as Annie Duke (read some of the other posts, or look at the interview on gutshot.co.uk). She came in trying to play the same style as she always does. Everyone knows that amatuers have a hard time letting go of hands, so you cannot bluff them off like you would a pro.
I also have a hard time believing that the field is filled with the pros, and everyone else is dead money. I believe that while not known there are HUNDRUDS, if not fully half the field that are capable players, and not just dead money. While they may not have the same disipline, or practice as the pros, they are able to get a read just like anyone else- especially against the pros who they are most likely paying special attention too (I would watch Phil Ivey if he was sitting at my table).
Anyway just a few thoughts that popped into my
head.
