Jump to content

wsop main event 2006


Recommended Posts

There are thousands of 18 and 19 year old kids running around with 6 figure bankrolls from online poker.With the insane amount of money that is floating around poker these days, isn't it time to change some of the buy-ins (the Main Event for example) at the WSOP?The WPT championship has a 25k buy-in. Since a majority of the WSOP main event entrants win their way in through satellites anyway, it would probably only mean one more round of qualifying.It wouldn't be a 5600 person lottery anymore if the buy-in were upped. The prizepool would probably be bigger since you'd only need 2240 people to have the same pool at 25k each.The end result would be higher quality play since the buy-in would be more significant and there would be fewer players (although still a very high number).I think that with the amount of money in poker today, it's time that the main event change it up a little so that it doesn't wind up being a 2 week long lottery with 8000 people.Discuss/Flame away...

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are thousands of 18 and 19 year old kids running around with 6 figure bankrolls from online poker.With the insane amount of money that is floating around poker these days, isn't it time to change some of the buy-ins (the Main Event for example) at the WSOP?The WPT championship has a 25k buy-in. Since a majority of the WSOP main event entrants win their way in through satellites anyway, it would probably only mean one more round of qualifying.It wouldn't be a 5600 person lottery anymore if the buy-in were upped. The prizepool would probably be bigger since you'd only need 2240 people to have the same pool at 25k each.The end result would be higher quality play since the buy-in would be more significant and there would be fewer players (although still a very high number).I think that with the amount of money in poker today, it's time that the main event change it up a little so that it doesn't wind up being a 2 week long lottery with 8000 people.Discuss/Flame away...
it's been discussed, and I agree 100%
Link to post
Share on other sites
There are thousands of 18 and 19 year old kids running around with 6 figure bankrolls from online poker.With the insane amount of money that is floating around poker these days, isn't it time to change some of the buy-ins (the Main Event for example) at the WSOP?The WPT championship has a 25k buy-in. Since a majority of the WSOP main event entrants win their way in through satellites anyway, it would probably only mean one more round of qualifying.It wouldn't be a 5600 person lottery anymore if the buy-in were upped. The prizepool would probably be bigger since you'd only need 2240 people to have the same pool at 25k each.The end result would be higher quality play since the buy-in would be more significant and there would be fewer players (although still a very high number).I think that with the amount of money in poker today, it's time that the main event change it up a little so that it doesn't wind up being a 2 week long lottery with 8000 people.Discuss/Flame away...
I agree with much of what you say. But not your first line in bold. Estimates from inside the online poker industry are that roughly 7-10% of all online poker players are actually winners. And that includes the ones who are barely beating the break even point.I think the number of 18-22 year olds with 6 figure bankrolls is nowhere near as high as you do.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's in the casino's best interest to keep the field bigger, so it probably won't change until they can't physically fit everyone in.
but if they doubled the buy in to a few events and got half as many players they'd make the same amount. Plus the event would be over quicker, so you would have people looking for cash game sooner.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's in the casino's best interest to keep the field bigger, so it probably won't change until they can't physically fit everyone in.
but if they doubled the buy in to a few events and got half as many players they'd make the same amount. Plus the event would be over quicker, so you would have people looking for cash game sooner.
I think the point is that with more people comes more side games, room rentals, and prostitute sales. I'll bet that a hooker can make her entire yearly income during the WSOP! There is a lot more money floating around Vegas with larger groups of idiots than with bigger bankrolled half-idiots.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with much of what you say. But not your first line in bold. Estimates from inside the online poker industry are that roughly 7-10% of all online poker players are actually winners. And that includes the ones who are barely beating the break even point.I think the number of 18-22 year olds with 6 figure bankrolls is nowhere near as high as you do.
I'd like to know exactly where that comes from. It seems ridiculous to me that 90% of online players are break even or losing. That means that the few who are winning are winning ALL of the money and I just don't think that's so. Also, how can that really be estimated?In terms of event sizes and buy-ins:The casino should want to have bigger buy-ins with fewer people because that means that they can make the same amount of money with half of the people, but their personnel expenses would also be roughly half since they would emply half as many dealers, half as many floorment, etc.That would also leave more room for cash games.I know that the larger volume of people is good for certain things (booking hotel rooms for example), but it also costly in other places (more security, more poker personnel).In general, I'm sure that casinos would rather have huge fields, but you could still probably raise the buy-ins for some events and not lose that many people.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's in the casino's best interest to keep the field bigger, so it probably won't change until they can't physically fit everyone in.
but if they doubled the buy in to a few events and got half as many players they'd make the same amount. Plus the event would be over quicker, so you would have people looking for cash game sooner.
I think the point is that with more people comes more side games, room rentals, and prostitute sales. I'll bet that a hooker can make her entire yearly income during the WSOP! There is a lot more money floating around Vegas with larger groups of idiots than with bigger bankrolled half-idiots.
I didn't think of renting more rooms, you're right. But I doubt Harrah's is worries about prostitutes making a living.But I still think some of the buy ins should be raised, I know the OP was talking about the ME, but there are way too many 1500 and 2K buy ins.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with much of what you say. But not your first line in bold. Estimates from inside the online poker industry are that roughly 7-10% of all online poker players are actually winners. And that includes the ones who are barely beating the break even point.I think the number of 18-22 year olds with 6 figure bankrolls is nowhere near as high as you do.
I'd like to know exactly where that comes from. It seems ridiculous to me that 90% of online players are break even or losing. That means that the few who are winning are winning ALL of the money and I just don't think that's so. Also, how can that really be estimated?
I know that Ferguson made a comment like that during an interview a few years ago, and I've heard it thrown around a few other times too. Of course he was probably talking about live play, and I think online would be slightly higher due to less rake and bonuses. I'd say no more than 20% of online players make money. Have you seen how horrible most players are?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with much of what you say. But not your first line in bold. Estimates from inside the online poker industry are that roughly 7-10% of all online poker players are actually winners. And that includes the ones who are barely beating the break even point.I think the number of 18-22 year olds with 6 figure bankrolls is nowhere near as high as you do.
I'd like to know exactly where that comes from. It seems ridiculous to me that 90% of online players are break even or losing. That means that the few who are winning are winning ALL of the money and I just don't think that's so. Also, how can that really be estimated?In terms of event sizes and buy-ins:The casino should want to have bigger buy-ins with fewer people because that means that they can make the same amount of money with half of the people, but their personnel expenses would also be roughly half since they would emply half as many dealers, half as many floorment, etc.That would also leave more room for cash games.I know that the larger volume of people is good for certain things (booking hotel rooms for example), but it also costly in other places (more security, more poker personnel).In general, I'm sure that casinos would rather have huge fields, but you could still probably raise the buy-ins for some events and not lose that many people.
This info has been published in several places most notably in Jackpot Jay Lovinger's articles on ESPN.com. Granted he is not a great poker writer...however he is a serious journalist working for a reputable company and he attributed this information to someone he knows high up the Party Poker management chain.So do I know this info for a fact??? No I do not. But I consider Lovinger to be a credible reporter and that is where I found this information.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wans't saying that it was totally wrong, since I have no basis other than my own opinion. I personally agree with the poster who said that about 20% would be the maximum who are winners. I know that there are TONS of awful players out there, but that doesn't take away from the fact that someone has to be winning.I really have no basis for anything I'm saying except for what my common sense tells me. If you've read it somewhere, then I guess I'm just really surprised that the percentage is so low.Just glad that I'm in that small percent 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wans't saying that it was totally wrong, since I have no basis other than my own opinion. I personally agree with the poster who said that about 20% would be the maximum who are winners. I know that there are TONS of awful players out there, but that doesn't take away from the fact that someone has to be winning.I really have no basis for anything I'm saying except for what my common sense tells me. If you've read it somewhere, then I guess I'm just really surprised that the percentage is so low.Just glad that I'm in that small percent 8)
You are forgetting all the people who win a small amount but are ultimately losers because of the rake, deposit loading fees, etc.In reality, 30% are probably winning players but at half of those dont win enough to cover the rake and other factors.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are forgetting all the people who win a small amount but are ultimately losers because of the rake, deposit loading fees, etc.In reality, 30% are probably winning players but at half of those dont win enough to cover the rake and other factors.
Indeed I was forgetting about those people.I guess that 30% are winners and the sites turn 20% into losers.Good point.
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 Years ago $10,000 could buy a small house.Today, $10,000 barely gets you the cheapest new car available.Sure, raise it up to $25,000.8 days is too long for any poker tourney. Some of us great players have lives to lead outside of poker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...