Here is what we know, the Internet and TV and caused a boom in poker's popularity.
I beleive the WSOP should be broken down into a qualifier...... Most of the the Internet players are putting up less than $500 to play in a $10K buyin tourney. Now for those who buy in, they put up $10K for $10k in chips. So tell me, who would be a little more fearless?? I think this is why we see more aggressive play from onliners, because they have less invested.
Leading into the qualifer..... All of the internet qualifiers should be put in a WSOP qualifer to play in "the big one" so if you have 2000 online players, they will play down to 500, then those 500 will be placed in the WSOP with all other players who won live sattellites, or put up 10K to play. This is just a thought.... One of the key factors to good play is being able to read people, this will expose online players to live play as well as everyone being able to feel them out.
But the game is coming down to more luck than skill, its obvious since the cards are shuffled and delt, the cards you recieve are random. Whoever can maximize there good cards will usually come out on top. The art of the bluff does not exist anymore. Amateurs will tend to marry a hand that has a low percentage to hit, then it does... they are able to bust the better player.
I think if something is not broke don't fix it, and an event that has expereinced phenomenal growth over the past couple of years is not broke!
In my mind, the WSOP POY can lay claim to being World Champion of the Elite Pros, which it seems to me is the main problem people have with the large fields of the main event.
The problem with putting the internet guys into a qualirier is that they entered a tournament, in which the prize money was the 10K seat into the WSOP. They are paying 10K to get in, they just had to go through a qualifier to make it. Just like any satallite which is the reason this tournament has become so popular.
Also, realize that many pros don't actually even put up the full 10k as they often play in satellites themselves. Why not win their way in cheap if they can. The only difference now is that you don't have to be in Vegas to play in the satellites, and 50 bazillion people watched the WPT and are playing in them as well.
I am not an online player myself, but in the future, I am planning on utilizing online satellites because I can't spend 8 days in vegas prior to the tourney trying ot win my way in. Makes it all the more convenient. But if I did win a seat, I am certainly not an "online" player...in my definition anyway, and I am not an "online amatuer". Just a poker player using the internet the way millions have, to make things easier and more convenient.
With internet qualifiers, there is no guarantee that anyone in the tournament is any good. If a bunch of really bad undisciplined people get together and play a tournament, the winner still isn't any good. Someone has to win, right?
I agree that a qualifier system should be set up. Basically, what everyone seems to want is that the people actually participating for the WSOP are good players. There's only one way to ensure this and that's to make it like the finals of a playoff system. Imagine if the NBA allowed any 12 guys to enter a local basketball tournament and the winner got to play against the best NBA team in the Finals. The game would suck and nobody would have any fun playing nor watching.
It would be better to have a bracketed system where anyone could enter a First Round tournament. There would be several rounds with the winner of each bracket advancing. Think March Madness. People would get a certain number of points for finishing position and these points would increase in subsequent rounds. You could enter more than 1 Level 1 event but you'd have to get to the final table of a Level 1 event to make it to a Level 2 event. Assuming a 5 level approach, anyone who won a level 4 event or made the final table of a level 5 event would automatically make it to the WSOP. Additional spots could be opened up depending on points acquired to fill up a certain number of seats. Satallite tournaments could pay money into the prize pool of the WSOP as a way to cover entry fees. This is a horribly convoluted mess of a plan, but in the end, the people sitting down at the WSOP would be a managable number and they'd all be quite proven. No more complaining that they were just rookies getting lucky cards.
There are many...many poker tournaments won each day by players who are not "any good." Not by the standards we hold for a "name" pro anyway.
Not much has changed in professional poker other than the numbers have grown. There will always be players that win, break even, and lose...it just has to be that way. In fact some may argue that the field is actually stronger overall as many of these new players have spent countless hours playing online, reading books, and learning. 10 years ago...many people just plopped their money down and took a shot. Not too much of that these days.
That really doesn't seem fair to the online qualifiers does it? I mean isn't $10,000 worth $10,000. If I won my entry online for $10,000 why would I then have to "play my way into the tournament" when somebody else can just lay down $10,000 grand and get in. Basically all your doing is making it tougher for on-line players to win it.
What about breaking the tournament down to 9 sections. So if you have 2,700 entries break it down to 9 groups of 300 and the winner of each group makes the head table of the WSOP and each player starts off the day with the same amount of chips.
I'm suggesting that the WSOP no longer allows buyins at all. If you win a $10k buyin then you are just as qualified if not more than someone who bought their way in with actual cash. But why shouldn't we be able to run one event each year where your money wasn't welcome? Why not make it an event you have to qualify for by winning a series of tournaments (not just one) and it was invitation only rather than allowing anyone ready to donate? There are plenty of non World Championship events where money talks. The big event should be just like the big event in sports. You have to play your way in but by doing more than being a one-hit wonder.
The WSOP was originated by Benny Binion to be a showcase in which the top poker players could come together, play each other and show off their skill, and one would be declared the champion. If the event holds true to it's original conception, the field would be narrowed to about 100 of the best players based on a year round points system gathered at qualifying tournaments. Myself, I think that the WPT has already cornered that market in a sense, and will expand on the idea. The WSOP stands alone in that anyone can play - what a unique concept!
The pros are a little put out because they were beat by "rookies". Annie Duke was seething about being busted out by a guy who "should NEVER have called the bet" she made. As anyone who plays live poker knows, you must adjust your game for your competition, or lose. The pros have become a little elitist in their attitudes, thinking that online players and amatuers have no business playing in a tourney such as this because their inexperience lends itself to "bad play". The pros need to adjust, or they will be busted out. It's a whole new game.
The different style of play will net different results. Dan Harrington made it to the final table twice in two years. I don't feel sorry for the pros. if they are as good as they think they are, they will find a way to win, just as Harrington as done.
In the meantime, I've heard the rumor that Harrah's is going to build a property based on the WSOP, complete with a viewing stadium and the ability to handle thousands of competitors and participants. Do you really think they will change the format, if they sink all that money into it? I see them running constant satellites themselves....
Bottom line is money talks. The more people who enter means the more prize money is on offer and the more money the casino makes.
They can then charge more for screening the event, more people watch and more advertising is sold.
Hell, they'd have 10,000 entrants if they could, where the winner would be getting World Heavyweight Boxing type money. If watching someone take down $5m is exciting, imagine if that was 10 or even 20m?
Add to that the fact it "could" be someone who has only paid $10-40 to enter and you have the most powerful advert for playing poker in the world.
I do agree with a number of people here who suggest a proper Championship event with the best players over a season only permitted to enter on a points basis. They could use the revenue generated to part fund the final prize and...wait a minute this sounds very farmiliar!
The only thing I'd change is, as has been mentioned, make it invitation only based on season performance. Prize money may not be the biggest but at least that player really can claim to be the best player that season and you'll get more of the best players featuring.
Obviously money talks. And if you look at the players qualifying through pokerstars, they were doing better then average even without the top 2 finishers. This doesn't surprise me one bit, as my experience is that there are a lot of tough players knocking around there.
When I hear paople say that winning the WSOP is all luck, it kinda pisses me off really. If it was that easy why don't you give it a shot yourselves? There are sattelites from 40$ and up online. Can't be that hard winning a seat could it? In my opinion you cannot win that big an event without being really lucky a couple of times alogng the road. And this goes for the pros as well. But this is not the same as saying that skills doesn't matter in tourneys. I think it will be a very rare occation where a guy without a clue would make it to the final table.
Finally I don't see a problem really. Why should it be bad for poker that a bunch of no names runs with the trophy? I guess all those complaining, because they've picked their favorite heroes from the WPT on travel channel. Poker has become TV entertainment, and most of the posts here during the WSOP reflected just that. People rooting for this or that pro. But the truth of it is that some of the very best poker players in the world are rarely seen on the tourney circuit. So just because you haven't heard of them, doesn't mean that they aren't good.
Finally I think that it is only natural that online players start to dominate the poker world. After all online has introduced poker to vast amounts of new people. It would be odd if there weren't a few among them who were truly gifted. This year was just the beginning.
