RyanM 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Eventually, that is.Right now the beauty of the WSOP is that anyone can enter, and anyone can win. But with the growing fields, it will become harder and harder to house and run the tournament, not to mention the low possibility of a "name" ever winning it again. Does the tournament have a max occupancy now? Will it eventually become an invitational of sorts?I'm not sure.Although I'll say it'd be nice for there to be a cap on online qualifiers. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 what a horrible idea that would be. Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Hand 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 The big draw is that anyone with the money can sit down and play, unlike an event like Wimbledon or the Masters.The growth of the event will level off, and soon - the field can't keep doubling every year for much longer. If they want to limit the field, they'll raise the entry fee to $25K or so. That could cut the # of online seats won by about 60%. Link to post Share on other sites
Pupsta 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Eventually, that is.Right now the beauty of the WSOP is that anyone can enter, and anyone can win. But with the growing fields, it will become harder and harder to house and run the tournament, not to mention the low possibility of a "name" ever winning it again. Does the tournament have a max occupancy now? Will it eventually become an invitational of sorts?I'm not sure.Although I'll say it'd be nice for there to be a cap on online qualifiers.why? why is there a need for a cap on online qualifiers? i'm sure pretty much everybody is in agreement that the more people, the better it is for the wsop/poker/everything...more ppl in the wsop means more for the house, which makes them happy...more people in the wsop means more interest in poker, which means poker's happy, more people in the wsop means more dead money in the tourney and in the side games, which makes everything happy (except for the dead money...they go home sad and have delusions of grandeur of the next year) Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Uh no! Link to post Share on other sites
tdmlb24 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Pupsta, what would be better for the house:1. 6k entrants with 1ok entry2. 5k entrants with 25k entry Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Monkey 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 The big draw is that anyone with the money can sit down and play, unlike an event like Wimbledon or the Masters.The growth of the event will level off, and soon - the field can't keep doubling every year for much longer. If they want to limit the field, they'll raise the entry fee to $25K or so. That could cut the # of online seats won by about 60%.i think the number of players will start to decrease in the next year or 2. raising the entry fee to $25k isnt a bad idea but i dont really think it will cut off online qualifiers that much. to the OP why would harrahs want to limit the amount of players. the more players the more money they make Link to post Share on other sites
Guest XXEddie Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 what a horrible idea that would be. Link to post Share on other sites
Fphillips 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Limit the field by raising the buy in would be a great start. Maybe instead of online qualifiers getting a seat into the ME they'll get a seat in a circut event and try to get a seat from there. I don't know, but I do know a torney field of 6k plus would be a nightmare. Link to post Share on other sites
Pupsta 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Pupsta, what would be better for the house:1. 6k entrants with 1ok entry2. 5k entrants with 25k entryi'm going with 6k entrants with 10k entry...that's 1k more people to lose $ at blackjack/craps/slots on off days or after play is done Link to post Share on other sites
jooka 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Pupsta, what would be better for the house:1. 6k entrants with 1ok entry2. 5k entrants with 25k entryId be interested to know if they could actually get 5k people on 25k per entry. It could happen I suppose, but seems quite high and I would guess it to be half that if they did raise it 25k. Link to post Share on other sites
RyanM 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 Woah woah, settle down people...I'm not saying it'd be a GREAT idea, I'm just trying to entice some discussion.I'd agree that it'll probably start to decrease in a few years, but it'll never sink to < 1000 numbers like 2003 and before. I wouldn't mind them raising the entry fee whatsoever...but IMHO the numbers of online qualifiers this year was ridiculous. 1100 from Pokerstars alone....thats 261 more people than were in the 2003 event!I love the fact poker has gotten so big, but I've seen people on here complain about how the 2005 event was simply a crapshoot. So - you're obviously thinking about it too. Link to post Share on other sites
Fphillips 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 How bout a WSOP torney just for online qualifiers they can issue desk tops to everyone and set up cubicals it'll be great.Or give every one 50 bucks and turn'em loose at party and the first one run the50 into 5k gets the bracelet. Link to post Share on other sites
Elpedro 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 I think that a tournament which is the biggest of the big (kind of like the wsop main event is supposed to be) which you have to qualify for or pay some huge entry fee (I think that $25K will be normal soon for the main events). We don't have to change the current wsop, but maybe make the tournament of champions a bigger deal....? It would be pretty cool to see a smaller field of bigger names that all the big names actually had a shot at winning. Then you'd have some dead money who paid the huge entry fee (maybe $50k) and some online qualifiers. If the buy in was $50k then the amount of online qualifiers would go down. I love the wsop, but i'm worried that it is too much of a crap shoot - it's like a pro am in golf now. If it's supposed to be for crowning the world champion, then i think it needs some changes..... The winner of this event is supposed to be the best player, but 2002, 2003, 2004 (arguably), 2005 it hasn't been the best player. Link to post Share on other sites
PMJackson21 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 I love the fact poker has gotten so big, but I've seen people on here complain about how the 2005 event was simply a crapshoot. So - you're obviously thinking about it too.Crapshoot in what sense? That many people makes the field a lot tougher to navigate, but the structure was still set up so you have plenty of play for your chips. When I think craphoot, I think a fast structure where you have to gamble early to stand a chance. Regardless of how many people were in the ME, that didn't change the structure/style of play from my POV. Like any MTT, there were some great players, a bunch of solid players, and some truly awful players.Patrick Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Monkey 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Woah woah, settle down people...I'm not saying it'd be a GREAT idea, I'm just trying to entice some discussion.I'd agree that it'll probably start to decrease in a few years, but it'll never sink to < 1000 numbers like 2003 and before. I wouldn't mind them raising the entry fee whatsoever...but IMHO the numbers of online qualifiers this year was ridiculous. 1100 from Pokerstars alone....thats 261 more people than were in the 2003 event!I love the fact poker has gotten so big, but I've seen people on here complain about how the 2005 event was simply a crapshoot. So - you're obviously thinking about it too.who cares how many people enter it or how many online qualifiers. all the rest of the tourneys through out the year have around 300-400 at most. except for other WSOP holdem events. i dont really know what the big deal is. its 1 tournament out of the year. pro players did great this year at the WSOP except for the main event and even in the ME their was 4 or 5 who had a chance with under 40 players left. Link to post Share on other sites
RyanM 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 Well I've won tournaments where I haven't been the best player...basically the way I understand it, the WSOP crowns the best poker player that week. Which, of course, there is luck involved. But I just don't like the crapshootesque element. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Monkey 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 I love the fact poker has gotten so big, but I've seen people on here complain about how the 2005 event was simply a crapshoot. So - you're obviously thinking about it too.Crapshoot in what sense? That many people makes the field a lot tougher to navigate, but the structure was still set up so you have plenty of play for your chips. When I think craphoot, I think a fast structure where you have to gamble early to stand a chance. Regardless of how many people were in the ME, that didn't change the structure/style of play from my POV. Like any MTT, there were some great players, a bunch of solid players, and some truly awful players.Patrickwhen i think crapshoot i also think of it as a fast structure that doesnt allow for much play. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Monkey 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Well I've won tournaments where I haven't been the best player...basically the way I understand it, the WSOP crowns the best poker player that week. Which, of course, there is luck involved. But I just don't like the crapshootesque element.the best player never wins the tournament. Link to post Share on other sites
No_Neck 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 wimbeldon is an open even just so you know. You can pay to qualify Link to post Share on other sites
SapphireTiger 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 I love the fact poker has gotten so big, but I've seen people on here complain about how the 2005 event was simply a crapshoot. So - you're obviously thinking about it too.Crapshoot in what sense? That many people makes the field a lot tougher to navigate, but the structure was still set up so you have plenty of play for your chips. When I think craphoot, I think a fast structure where you have to gamble early to stand a chance. Regardless of how many people were in the ME, that didn't change the structure/style of play from my POV. Like any MTT, there were some great players, a bunch of solid players, and some truly awful players.Patricki think the fact that so many pros went deep and even won bracelets this year kind of dismissed the fact that the high number of amateurs in the field will make sure no pro ever wins again.3 pros made it to the top 27...Even with the field so large, the pros did very well.In addition, poker does have a bubble. We aren't going to get such an exponential growth every year. Link to post Share on other sites
ramble 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Moneymaker won with 800ish in the field.Varkoni won with less than that, 600ish? in the field.Seems the crapshoot started before the big growth. In fact, I think most would agree that the '05 and '04 winners are better than the '03 and '02 winners.So whats the problem again? Link to post Share on other sites
RyanM 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 Um, I'm using the "crapshoot" term which I've read off here MULTIPLE times...don't act like I'm the first to use it. Link to post Share on other sites
PMJackson21 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 I love the wsop, but i'm worried that it is too much of a crap shoot - it's like a pro am in golf now. If it's supposed to be for crowning the world champion, then i think it needs some changes..... The winner of this event is supposed to be the best player, but 2002, 2003, 2004 (arguably), 2005 it hasn't been the best player.In what year did the consensus 'best player in poker' win the ME? As far as I can tell, it rarely is who people consider to be the 'world's best NLHE tournament player' at the time. 1971 Johnny Moss - one of the best1972 Amarillo Slim Preston - not on Moss/Brunson level1973 Puggy Pearson - eh, i wouldnt say he was the best then1974 Johnny Moss - yes1975 Sailor Roberts - one of the best1976 Doyle Brunson - yes1977 Doyle Brunson - yes1978 Bobby Baldwin - same boat as sailor/puggy/slim1979 Hal Fowler - No1980 Stu Ungar - yes1981 Stu Ungar - yes1982 Jack Strauss - No1983 Tom McEvoy - No1984 Jack Keller - No1985 Bill Smith - No1986 Berry Johnston - No1987 Johnny Chan - No/yes...relatively unknown until this1988 Johnny Chan - yes!!!!! 1989 Phil Hellmuth Jr. - no...chan is the best in the world at that point.1990 Mansour Matloubi - no1991 Brad Daugherty - no1992 Hamid Dastmalchi - no1993 Jim Bechtel - no1994 Russ Hamilton - no1995 Dan Harrington - no (great, but not considered the best at that point)1996 Huck Seed - no1997 Stu Ungar - due to his condition, i doubt people would have made him a favorite1998 Scotty Nguyen - wasn't a name before this1999 J. J. "Noel" Furlong - no2000 Chris Ferguson - can't say he was 'the best' at that time2001 Carlos Mortenson - not well known at that point2002 Robert Varkonyi - god, I hope not2003 Chris Moneymaker - No2004 Greg Raymer - NoPatrick Link to post Share on other sites
Elpedro 0 Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 where are you getting your "best player" ranking system from ? 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