is the wsop dying?

[Beare 0]

Did he just write that he has a fantasy to go all in on Daniel?

Absolutely...it involves his questioning me as he does to get a person talking to get a feel for their hand...and my response is to basically tell him about how I see it as a win-win situation for me for the reasons stated...smiling of course through it all.I imagine I would have the best possible hand...say something like pocket A's to his pocket K's...flop is A A K which I slow play, check...he bets his fh, Kings full of A's...which I call...turn comes nothing and he once again bets to get me further committed...I call...river comes K and I go all-in...ouch.In reality, it would probably go quite differently but I would have a killer hand with perhaps one possible hand that could beat me which he may or may not have but like I said...win or lose, I win...what up...you don't fantasize???Oh well, share in mine then...it shall be televised.

[troutsmart 0]

Why do I look forward to the World Series of Poker?1) The competition between established pros to add bracelets (ex. Erik Seidel and Allen Cunningham adding to their collection)2) The open nature and multiple methods provide anybody to find their way to a final table and potentially win (ex. Chris Moneymaker)3) It is at the world series where we identify the "players". There are many highly-skilled players that are unknown or have achieved some success, yet remain off the minds of the vast majority of poker followers. Due to the extensive media coverage, and prestige of the events, we are able to learn about these players. Most name players became such at the world series. (examples are too numerous, but last year we were introduced to David Williams, Greg Raymer, Thomas Keller, Scott Fischman, Josh Arieh, etc.) Michael Gracz is such a player this year having won a WPT event and now a bracelet. Clff "Johnny Bax" Josephy is another. We have simply entered a new era in poker. The World Series of Poker has changed, but is not gone by any means. It is at its potential peak. We should be grateful for how big the game has become and the multiple ways for the everyday player to compete.

[troutsmart 0]

Now as for the decline of the World Series of Poker, there are some things happening that are a concern.1) Ten handed tables are changing the pace of the events. Warren Karp makes this point in a cardplayer.com interview.2) The structure isn't very forgiving in many events. If you don't win pots early, you're in the hot seat. 3) Logistically speaking, if you make it deep into a tournament, it can keep you out of two other events. A few events have had long first days, short second days, and then come back the final table on the third day.4) Many fans are interested in watching the events, but their proximity, and lack of manners in some instances, has created some tension. 5) The removel of mixed game events in favor of NL events. This is most concerning to me.Those are a few that I can think of right off. However, none of these are such that they cannot be altered in the future.

[allinbluff35 0]

One thing that bugs me about poker is that anyone can suddenly declare themselves a "pro". Raymer and Moenymaker certainly weren't "pro's" before they won the main event.The definition of "pro" in golf, for instance, is when you decide to play for money, you lose "amatuer" status. In poker, everybody is always playing for money, thus, wouldn't we all be "pro's"?I know that you may respond by saying that poker pros play poker exclusively as a way to make a living, however, I would bet many that we refer to as pros have day jobs as well. The line is way too blurry for me. Also, being a poker pro certainly doesn't mean you are profitable at it.I think we should throw out the term "poker pro" and simply refer to them as poker "celebrities".I'm curious what others think of my silly rant.

I don't know if anyone has replied to your post but Raymer was a winning player at the upper limts at Foxwoods before the WSOP. If I remember correctly he was playing 75/150 or higher.

[Python49 0]

Exactly.What people are failing to realize is that these "pros" that they learned about and became fans of... they learned about them BECAUSE of this boom in poker and all of it being televised. Just how Josh Arieh was a pro out there doing his thing in poker and nobody knew about him, theres even MORE pros out there doing the same thing, you just dont know about them yet because you havent seen them. While watching last years world series you probably figured David Williams to be an unknown random internet player (which he pretty much was) but now he's got fans and people who want to see him play... what makes you think the same thing wont happen this year? It will. You will see great players that you're impressed by and it will be fun as well to watch.... but yeah i do agree when you're seeing some crappy player like a plumber who was a fluke to get to the final table thats no fun to watch... its just painful.

[Bijjy 0]

Meh watching wang chung vs the statue on the WPT heads up after one guy hits a 1/2% runner runner 7 to win, as well as the rampant suck out fest that followed. If I wanted to see that I'd go sit in a .05/.10 game or a .25/.50. Sorry if that insults you low limit players. The WPT is supposed to be entertaining, for me its watching some of the best play skillfully. Now if the best in that tourny happens to be an internet pro, hell I will be more then happy to see J bax battle it out. But if it does happen to be a plumber vs a dish washer, and they are tossing their chips in with 43os at the final table headsup, I kinda lose interest.

[Photobill 0]

The WSOP should be for anyone that wants to play. If you raise the entry you would shut out players. Let’s say you raised the entry fee to 1,000,000, you would get a few entries but would you still be able to call it the “WORLD” SOP. Let everyone in and see what happens. I think that ALL the pros love the pot odds of every tourney!!!!! (Entry has not gone up but the prize fund has exploded)

[Photobill 0]

The WSOP should be for anyone that wants to play. If you raise the entry you would shut out players. Let’s say you raised the entry fee to 1,000,000, you would get a few entries but would you still be able to call it the “WORLD” SOP. Let everyone in and see what happens. I think that ALL the pros love the pot odds of every tourney!!!!! (Entry has not gone up but the prize fund has exploded)

Also I bet with ESPN’s extensive coverage you will get to see a lot of play from the top pro’s, even if they do not make the final table. (They will have a featured table going all the time.)

[Toronto Poker 0]

here is an interesting query2005 WSOP Championchip: Buy-in is $10000, # of people that qualified on PokerStars: 900+2005 WPT Championchip: Buy-in is $25000, # of people that qualified on PokerStars: 11Raising the buy-in would help alot!!!

[monkeywicked 0]

An interesting thread. Lots of good points, and for the most part it stayed civil! A few random thoughts: 1. Yeah, definitely add a 100K game. Give it some title to distinguish it from the 10K Championship Event. Someone said that this wouldn't be +EV for the pros, but I think they care more about the glory than the money. And the WSOP has been 10K forever. it hasn't even grown to relation to inflation. Think of the excitement around a 100K event. I think the ratings would be huge. Maybe make it a rebuy event? Ha. 2. Bring back HORSE and all the other games. The WSOP should represent the best in all forms of poker. It's like the Olympics of poker. You can't just say, "It's only the high jump this year folks. People love that high jump!" 3. Maybe the should make the 100K event a dealer's choice event (with a dozen odd games to choose from). 4. Not WSOP related, but ESPN should have series called "The Big Game" where they film the big game over a course of a few months. It could be like The Real World of some such, you know, we'd kinda follow the pros lives as we track their results. There could be a big surprise like Andy Beal showing up. I suggested this in another thread but didn't get any feedback, but I can't imagine it not having a following. I mean, look how interested we get in DN' Golden Tee adventures, not to mention his match with Barry which is reduced to few lines of text by Travis. This shit should be filmed, promoted, put in a narrative context, and stuck on TV!

[pokepoke1967 0]

You want to win at poker, and if you can have fun so much the better. Like anything, when you watch it on t.v. you are going to have final tables that are classic and others that just stink. If Phil Ivey never wins another bracelet, but banks tens of millions of dollars over the next 20 years how upset do you think he will be? Watching poker is great, but playing poker is better. The poker economy is booming now because of the increased awareness, and because for the 1st time pennies, quarters, dollars, hundreds of dollars are being aggregated together by millions of people into entrys for big tourneys. It's well known that poker stars will have 800 or more entrants. Those entrys were created by, I would guess, 20,000 people taking shots at satellites and supers. Most of those people that didn't win entrys probably didn't lose more than they could afford. Playing micro-limit on the internet is mostly just replacing other forms of entertainment. And some of you want to slow or retard this growth in the poker economy by having tourneys with $100,000 entrys. Are you stupid? I see a lot of big names winning bracelets. I expect to see Johnny Chan as a spokesman for American Express soon. If other series and tourneys compete with the WSOP, and they are more player friendly and more entertaining for the fans then Harrah's might take notice. The Binions aren't involved anymore. It isn't what it was, it is what it is. You might think the WSOP sucks when you watch it on t.v. this year, but it's going to make a lot of people millionaires.

[dougie_nutz 0]

A wise man once said. Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.

[gradin123 0]

here is an interesting query2005 WSOP Championchip: Buy-in is $10000, # of people that qualified on PokerStars:  900+2005 WPT Championchip: Buy-in is $25000, # of people that qualified on PokerStars: 11Raising the buy-in would help alot!!!

A raised Buy-in would help. The final event should be open to anyone but $100,000 buy-in would restrict it to good players, a few sateillite winners and real rich people. As it is now there are too many sateililtes for sure.I don't think $25,000 would be enough though. The difference in the number of qualifiers from Pokerstars probably had more to do with the fact the WSOP is the biggest event in terms of recognition. More people want in it than the WPT.

[Fourhead 0]

Sure the WSOP is not as magic as it used to be, but i'd say anyone who outlasts and beats a field as huge as it's gonna be this year is a pretty wicked poker player.

[pokepoke1967 0]

A raised buy-in would help. Why? What exactly would it help? Nobody really thinks that the main event champ is the "best" poker player. They may not even have played better than the person that comes in 9th or 50th. So what? You can't determine who the best poker player is anyway, and I think it's pretty easy to live with that. What I do know is that there is a great system in place now to aggregate a ton of money by small stakes players into entrys for thousands of players that wouldn't pay the entry otherwise. The "no-names" at the final table will have earned their $millions a hell of a lot more than some dang powerball winner. Leave it the way it is!

[Scanner313 0]

I'm not an Annie Duke fan, but maybe she was right when she said it's going to be impossible for any pros to win the main event anymore.

I'm not an Annie Duke fan either, and I don't agree with her statement either. Why would it be "impossble" for a pro to make the final table? Is this not still poker? Are they not still supposed to be the elite of the field? Sure, the huge contestant base makes luck much more of a factor, but I still think the really good players have the advantage.My take on this has always been that the amatuer invasion is going to change the way the pros play the game. Is that a good thing? Maybe not to a purist, but when you hear a guy like Phil Hellmuth saying "I did everything right and I still got beat" (referring entirely to a player who didn't follow the "rules" of how to play a hand) it kind of bugs me. If poker was about playing everything by the book, it wouldn't be poker. The whole point of poker is to make your opponent think you're playing one way when you're hand is going the other. It's all about deception. And yes, suck outs by players who "should have" folded before the flop can irritate anyone, but that's the way it goes.If you want a pure, pro-level game then they will have to stick to the large cash games.Just one last note, you almost always see at least one "pro" at the final table of any WPT event, so having a pro's skill is obviously still an advantage over dumb luck.