DonkSlayer 1 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I don't know the history of all the other posts he's made on the WSOP and structures through the years, but my impression from the most recent blog wasn't that the "low" buyin events structure should suck, but rather the higher buyins definitely shouldn't, if only for the fact that the house is taking more per player. Link to post Share on other sites
WhatArunAA 0 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 If the smaller wsop events have a worse structure my chances of getting a bracelet go up 10x.. push fold and calling ranges ftw. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentButDeadly3 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Newsflash: There's other games besides NL Link to post Share on other sites
Cappy37 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 ^^^^^^^omg hawt Link to post Share on other sites
thebottomline 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 This seems to be a conflict of interest, if he doesnt play the 1500s, should he be allowed to have such an influence on the committee of how they are run?And since he only plays the big buyins, having their structures improved while having the cheaper tourny structures worsened seems like he is looking out for himself only.I don't think it can be brought into question whether or not Daniel is doing this for himself or for Poker. At the end of the day, put yourself in the hosts shoes (not Daniel's, but the organisers). You have a lot of expenses in running an event like this, besides the obvious costs of hiring dealers and the like. If people are paying $150 each towards these costs, you can't have them there for an excessive amount of time otherwise you'll risk losing money yourself. Remember, Jeffrey Pollack and everyone else involved in organising, running and maintaining the World Series needs a salary. If these $1500 events had the structures you want, it would be completely unfeasible. At the end of the day, they're here to make money as well, that means more to them than making sure the best players in the fifteen hundos do the best.It's not a good situation but I imagine, even though he doesn't play them, Daniel has the $1500 event players best interests at heart. Link to post Share on other sites
bbgun 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I don't think it can be brought into question whether or not Daniel is doing this for himself or for Poker. At the end of the day, put yourself in the hosts shoes (not Daniel's, but the organisers). You have a lot of expenses in running an event like this, besides the obvious costs of hiring dealers and the like. If people are paying $150 each towards these costs, you can't have them there for an excessive amount of time otherwise you'll risk losing money yourself. Remember, Jeffrey Pollack and everyone else involved in organising, running and maintaining the World Series needs a salary. If these $1500 events had the structures you want, it would be completely unfeasible. At the end of the day, they're here to make money as well, that means more to them than making sure the best players in the fifteen hundos do the best.It's not a good situation but I imagine, even though he doesn't play them, Daniel has the $1500 event players best interests at heart.Exactly...because the alternative would be drastically reducing the number of low buy-in events or eliminating them completely if it takes 7 days to award one prelim bracelet. Link to post Share on other sites
chgocubs99 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Start up your own WSOP then...you can use your own $1500 structure, and get some players with your sattelite being run the way you want that run, too. Link to post Share on other sites
Naked_Cowboy 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Exactly...because the alternative would be drastically reducing the number of low buy-in events or eliminating them completely if it takes 7 days to award one prelim bracelet.or upping the juice, and harrahs already takes a higher % of the overall prizepool from the smaller events. Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I started heard a rumor that Daniel actully runs the entire WSOPHe pockets most of the money himself, and has Lon McEron walk Mushu when he's not on air.So he is 100% responsible for any and all changes to the WSOPYou can PM DNA for any suggestions and if they are good enough, they will implement them and give you a free buy in to that event.I hope they pick mine, because I will cruch the $325 buy in skipament tournamentpoty Link to post Share on other sites
XXEddie 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I'm lost. Didn't DN make a thread a couple months ago or something saying that rebuy events should be banned because they aren't 'fair' to the average player who can't afford to rebuy countless times in them?Because this certainly isn't 'fair' to players who can't afford to play in the 5k+ buyin events.I agree with speeding up the structure because they have more player, and you don't wanna have a prelim bracelt event take 5-7 days, but Daniel is being a hipocrit. He just posted a thread saying how the WSOP should try to make poker more fair to the 'average' player, which I think is bullshit, and now he think that the smaller players should have to deal with a worse structure. Yeah, really 'fair'.I don't get it. Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I'm lost. Didn't DN make a thread a couple months ago or something saying that rebuy events should be banned because they aren't 'fair' to the average player who can't afford to rebuy countless times in them?Because this certainly isn't 'fair' to players who can't afford to play in the 5k+ buyin events.I agree with speeding up the structure because they have more player, and you don't wanna have a prelim bracelt event take 5-7 days, but Daniel is being a hipocrit. He just posted a thread saying how the WSOP should try to make poker more fair to the 'average' player, which I think is bullshit, and now he think that the smaller players should have to deal with a worse structure. Yeah, really 'fair'.I don't get it.good argument eddie Link to post Share on other sites
thebottomline 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 or upping the juice, and harrahs already takes a higher % of the overall prizepool from the smaller events.That is a very good option. Maybe they should poll the players, see if they'd rather pay $300 and have the $1200 go to the prize pool or remain as it is (figures are obviously purely for example, but whichever the alternative would be). That would surely be fair in the organisers eyes and keep the players happy, as I'm sure that's what the majority of players would want.I'm curious as to what Daniels opinion on this is, as I'm guessing someone within the committee over the years has suggested it or it has been discussed, if not, how feasible would this be? Link to post Share on other sites
TB17 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I agree with speeding up the structure because they have more player, and you don't wanna have a prelim bracelt event take 5-7 days, but Daniel is being a hipocrit. He just posted a thread saying how the WSOP should try to make poker more fair to the 'average' player, which I think is bullshit, and now he think that the smaller players should have to deal with a worse structure. Yeah, really 'fair'.I don't get it.uhm...faster structure = more variance for skilled player = more chance for average person to win... Link to post Share on other sites
Stupidhead 2 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think what Daniel meant for the rebuy events was that any pro with money to burn could gain a significant edge over anyone that couldn't afford to rebuy more than once or twice, whereas speeding up the structures in non-rebuy tournaments doesn't. It simply makes it more craps-shooty. "Fair" in terms of leverage in a single tournament and "Fair" in terms of the scale of all the tournaments combined are 2 different things. Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 lol1500aments.who gives a flying fugggg? Link to post Share on other sites
cwik 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 lol1500aments.who gives a flying fugggg?we're not all ballas that win 10 buyins every session like you. Link to post Share on other sites
Fluffdog87 2 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The structures were fair last year, on all of the nl tourneys, unlike a lot of other years for the WSOP. I hope they don't make them worse again. Link to post Share on other sites
Solar 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 "I love rebuy events, but they do not belong at the World Series of Poker when bracelets are on the line. I was a strong supporter of this change, despite the fact that rebuy events give me an inherent edge in terms of WSOP success. It's the right thing to do for poker, and I am genuinely able to separate what is best for me, and what is best for poker, and choose poker. "Selfish bastard. Resign imo. Link to post Share on other sites
XXEddie 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 uhm...faster structure = more variance for skilled player + even more variance for the average player = more chance for average person to win...FYP. It's not like the skilled players are the only ones effected by the structure. Also, I can see your arguement on this TB, my main point still stands though. If rebuys aren't fair to a player who doesn't have the bankroll to play them, how is a better structure in the higher buyin events fair to a player who can't afford to play in them. Link to post Share on other sites
TB17 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 FYP. It's not like the skilled players are the only ones effected by the structure. Also, I can see your arguement on this TB, my main point still stands though. If rebuys aren't fair to a player who doesn't have the bankroll to play them, how is a better structure in the higher buyin events fair to a player who can't afford to play in them.more variance for a worse player is GOOD and is more beneficial to them. It doesnt give them an edge in any way. I really dont get where you're trying to go with this. Are you saying eveyr tourney should have the same structure? Cuz that's dumb. Link to post Share on other sites
thebottomline 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 FYP. It's not like the skilled players are the only ones effected by the structure. Also, I can see your arguement on this TB, my main point still stands though. If rebuys aren't fair to a player who doesn't have the bankroll to play them, how is a better structure in the higher buyin events fair to a player who can't afford to play in them.I agree with TB that I'm now lost on what you're getting at, as more variance for the average player is perfect for them, as it evens out the edge that pro's have. It seems you want $1500 with structures that benefit the second tier of player, which would be impossible to implement, and I actually think the current ones are nearer to that, with the play sped up at the start and deeper where the money is. That means higher variance at the start - good for the average player, then when the money kicks in the play is slower, meaning of those remaining the best players should get the money.I don't see any other way of getting to what you seem to want, and the above sounds pretty perfect structure for the buyin and fees paid, no? Link to post Share on other sites
Pivvy2001 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I am sure that I just missed a thread somewhere (and, if so, a link would be great), but how long ago did Eddie return and did he explain where he disappeared to after his second dramabomb tiltorama explosion?Sorry if this question is as redundant as "Where's Jerry" but I am just curious..... Link to post Share on other sites
Fade2241 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 more variance for a worse player is GOOD and is more beneficial to them. It doesnt give them an edge in any way. I really dont get where you're trying to go with this. Are you saying eveyr tourney should have the same structure? Cuz that's dumb.QFT. It's hard for some people (including me) to see $1500 as a small buy-in but for the WSOP it just is. People should also play those NLHE tournaments with zero expectations. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now