The Official Dn Isn't Playing Anymore Tournaments Thread

[RayPowers 0]

My reasoning and I am not sure how valid it is...but the sheer number of events with whatever % being strictly NLHE. This to me negates at least some of the prestige that it used to have. If you go from was it 26 events in last years WSOP to 47 events with most being low limit hold em events. It seems to me that now they are saying that a bracelet is a bracelet. But i believe that if you have a HORSE bracelet or even if you have a PLO bracelet that is MUCH more prestigious than if you won a 1500 NLHE event.JMOAnd another is that even if you wanted to play all the events you almost can't because they are all crammed together. It seems like Harrah's is just trying to make the most money they can and that is all.

Hurmm, that's interesting points. Let me try to address them...High # of events, high % being NLHE:I'm extremely disappointed about this as well, and we all know that this is very much due to the influence of television on the event. Most people only understand NLHE. Many players only play NLHE, so the monetary drive is there for Harrah's to make more events NLHE. But, as an example, let's take the first $1500 NLHE event. Here's the results. It had 2776 players. In it was Carlos Mortensen, Jennifer Harmon, Devilfish, Paul Darden, Al Krux, Bill Gazes, Phil Gordon, and Eric Seidel, just to name people on the top 60 results. Do you think this is an easier field to win than in previous years?For reference, here's last year's similar event with 2013 players.Here's a similar one from 2000. 396 players. Why would this one be more prestigious?My feeling, and it is open to dispute, is that the bigger fields make it harder to win a bracelet because not only do you have to beat the same pros that are in smaller events, but you have to beat a field of not as good players who are just as likely to win coinflips and suck out against you. I actually think that the larger fields make it more difficult for any ONE pro to win, but that, as a whole, the professionals play at a high enough level to rise to the top as a group and still win these events, and that make its MORE prestigious to me (that they can beat both other pros, AND all the non-pros, to win).NLHE Events/Bracelets less prestigious than HORSE bracelets or such:Well, I don't necessarily agree that an Omaha bracelet is more prestigious than a NLHE bracelet, but I completely agree that a HORSE bracelet has more prestige, as it shows a mastery of several games of poker, instead of just one. But that's not something that really supports the argument that bracelets are worth les this year. After all, he have had our highest stakes HORSE tournament in history this year. Wouldn't this be just as prestigious as previous HORSE bracelets? If not, why not?Too many Events, can't play in all:This to me is an issue with the WSOP, and not something that really devalues the bracelets. If you wish to state that it means that pros have to split up their time playing, and therefore the pro contingent is spread thinner than usual because of the schedule, and that makes each individual event slightly easier to play, I will concede that the pros per event number is indeed smaller. I do however, think that for every pro spread too thin to play in an event, there's three new players who have been honing their skills on line like mad, and are providing a fresh new challenge to other players in the place of that missing pro.I need to take a time out here to reiterate that I agree that there are NUMEROUS issues with this year's WSOP. I have no argument with that at all. I simply disagree that these issues make these bracelets less worthy than previous bracelets somehow.Thanks for the actual explanation. I may be a slightly aggressive debater, but I really do enjoy hearing other people's opinions and discussing them. I'd love to hear more, or some retort to my comments.Ray

[NoSup4U 0]

Mobney is the root of all evil, go get em Daniel.

The love of...

[reedmcneal 0]

Long

I pretty much agree. The fields are bigger than ever, and winning a bracelet is much harder (and less likely) than ever before. How this diminishes prestige I don't understand. The players have absolutely no control over a tournaments administration. Now if a significant number of professional players began boycotting, and there was a noticeable loss of talent in many of the events, then I would say some prestige has been lost. As of yet this has not happened.

[Zach6668 513]

Not really. Has nascar become better (it's a sport, and it's got a massive influx..) No. It's become scarier and more like a soap opera. Has baseball become better? I guess if you call the roid'ed up players and all the asteriks in the record books "better." Football? Sure.. that's popular.. but now a player doesn't even stay with a team for more than a few years. A five year QB is an incredible thing. Basketball? Fights at courtside, high incidence of gang related incidents happening in the stands.. that's helpful. Hockey? Well, there was a strike a few years back, and despite the owners making some pretty solid money, the players were just hit with a salary cap.. which will give the owners even more money. Even cycling, which is gaining in massive popularity can't go without creating a "Lance Armstrong Doping Scandal"... and then using that to sell products.No sport gets better with an influx of money. It only gets worse and worse, more and more corrupt as the people running the sports try to milk more profitability out of it. I remember a sign held up when Barry Bonds took the field one day: "Babe Ruth did it for Beer and Pretzels."Poker as it was is gone. Poker as it is.. ESPN Poker. World Poker Tour Poker. That's what's here now. This sport has evolved into this.. and will evolve into something else in the future.I think the MAIN problem that is occuring here are too many tournaments and too many people. If they made the WSOP harder to get into, it'd be a difference, but now every venture capitalist who's set up a poker site is giving people the $10k entry. Maybe jump the buyins by 2x - 10x for each event.. or require players to enter the WSOP through a sattelite win + $10000 only.

Most owners in hockey are losing money, fwiw.

[RayPowers 0]

I pretty much agree. The fields are bigger than ever, and winning a bracelet is much harder (and less likely) than ever before. How this diminishes prestige I don't understand. The players have absolutely no control over a tournaments administration. Now if a significant number of professional players began boycotting, and there was a noticeable loss of talent in many of the events, then I would say some prestige has been lost. As of yet this has not happened.

I 100% agree here. If a significant number of the pro's start actively boycotting the events, the prestige certainly goes down. But right now... *shrug* the events may suck, but winning them is just as prestigious as it ever has been, if not moreso.Ray

[poker_curler 0]

Most owners in hockey are losing money, fwiw.

i mentioned that...no one seemed to notice or care...

[TazDev1979 0]

I think it has been diminished in one sense because of the number of events. In past years there have just been a few bracelets available, while this year is many more. That does not mean it is any easier to win a bracelet, but if you look in the past at some of the old players who won 6, 7 or 8 bracelets I would say it was tougher for them to win their bracelets just because there were less available.

[fleung22 1]

Man...the forum has been so full of negative energy of late.I'm starting to question my own desire to play in the WSOP in 4 days.

[RayPowers 0]

I think it has been diminished in one sense because of the number of events. In past years there have just been a few bracelets available, while this year is many more. That does not mean it is any easier to win a bracelet, but if you look in the past at some of the old players who won 6, 7 or 8 bracelets I would say it was tougher for them to win their bracelets just because there were less available.

But, there was also less people to go through to get the bracelet.... I think a truly interesting debate (and likely one with NO right answer) is whether the added difficulty of more players to have to fight through in a single event is more or less difficult than trying to win bracelet when there were less available to win.Ray

[stl_kid 0]

I think we can pretty much all agree that it is sickening how these Harrah's guys have taken something so good for poker as the World Series.

[JadeTiger 0]

But, there was also less people to go through to get the bracelet.... I think a truly interesting debate (and likely one with NO right answer) is whether the added difficulty of more players to have to fight through in a single event is more or less difficult than trying to win bracelet when there were less available to win.Ray

How do you think it is possible to measure something like that without some sort of quantative representation? It seems to me that the value of the bracelet comes from the individual. I mean I honestly see certain pros (like DN) winning a bracelet this year and maybe ultimately appreciating it but maybe less than one's won previously. I mean wouldnt it seem to reason that a player like Todd Brunson, winning his first bracelet last year, cherishes that win way more than say a guy like Johnny Chan's win in the same year. Chan's acheivment means something very different and thus is most likely only measurable by that very reason, of which, only he can attest. For us to sit hear and try and quantify the meaning of a bracelet or the heirarchy of pros based on who won what in what year in what size field, seems circular and meaningless beyond the interest of debate. For all intents and purposes, it would be reasonable to assume that the problems with the WSOP are not solely for the reason of bracelet prestige but more for the reason of being a part of something that is respected and revered. The WSOP has lost some of that. That is the point that I think most pros, and amateurs alike, would be remiss to deny. The frustrations and efforts to correct the problems that have drug the WSOP through the proverbial 'sludge' are testament of the players desire to see it changed and improved to accommodate the massive fields, while maintaining a competitve nature to an event that has never been anything less. Some of the suggestions I mentioned earlier in this thread are only a few of the many possibilities to keep the M.E. and other WSOP events from dissolving into nothing but a glorified fuster-cluck.

[RayPowers 0]

How do you think it is possible to measure something like that without some sort of quantative representation? It seems to me that the value of the bracelet comes from the individual. I mean I honestly see certain pros (like DN) winning a bracelet this year and maybe ultimately appreciating it but maybe less than one's won previously. I mean wouldnt it seem to reason that a player like Todd Brunson, winning his first bracelet last year, cherishes that win way more than say a guy like Johnny Chan's win in the same year. Chan's acheivment means something very different and thus is most likely only measurable by that very reason, of which, only he can attest. For us to sit hear and try and quantify the meaning of a bracelet or the heirarchy of pros based on who won what in what year in what size field, seems circular and meaningless beyond the interest of debate. For all intents and purposes, it would be reasonable to assume that the problems with the WSOP are not solely for the reason of bracelet prestige but more for the reason of being a part of something that is respected and revered. The WSOP has lost some of that. That is the point that I think most pros, and amateurs alike, would be remiss to deny. The frustrations and efforts to correct the problems that have drug the WSOP through the proverbial 'sludge' are testament of the players desire to see it changed and improved to accommodate the massive fields, while maintaining a competitve nature to an event that has never been anything less. Some of the suggestions I mentioned earlier in this thread are only a few of the many possibilities to keep the M.E. and other WSOP events from dissolving into nothing but a glorified fuster-cluck.

Hey Jade, glad to see such a response from you!I think I am trying to wholly segregate the basic populations belief in the prestige value of a bracelet versus that of the winner's view of that bracelet's value. I think that you are completely right that the personal value of a bracelet is prety much unquantifiable. I know if I win my first bracelet this year, it will be, to me, the most prestigious thing I have ever done. But to the general population, I will be "some shmo no one has ever head of who must have gotten lucky." :)I don't think quantifying the meaning of a bracelet based on size of the field or the time frame is meaningless. Just because there's no one right answer doesn't make it useless, well, at least to me. The whole disussion came up because Daniel, then I think Miss Idaho and Ivey fan, had all kind of stated in one way or another that previous bracelets somehow had more importance than current ones, and my 'argument' if you will, is actually closer to exactly what you say, in that they are either more prestigious now (my personal view), or that, as you say, the comparison of previous events to current one's yields nothing that can really say that either event is more prestigious.Everything you say about the WSOP issues is very much dead on. The WSOP has a lot of work to do to recover from the bad press of this years events. To me, the change in the shootout event is strange, but not as rediculous as Daniel makes it out to be, as there is nothing in the sheet that says a minimum players per table. Does that mean that Harrah's handled it well? No, not at all. But honestly, I find the marked card issues far more condemning of the WSOP as a whole.But in all of these cases, I don't feel that it hinders the prestige of those who have won a bracelet this year, because I don't think any of the issues that have come up have destroyed the integrity of any one event enough to make winning it seem like less of an accomplishment. And, if I leave with no other point than this, its that I don't want those who have won a bracelet this year to have their feat belitted by people because they won a bracelet "in that crappy 2006 WSOP."Ray

[JadeTiger 0]

Hey Jade, glad to see such a response from you!I think I am trying to wholly segregate the basic populations belief in the prestige value of a bracelet versus that of the winner's view of that bracelet's value. I think that you are completely right that the personal value of a bracelet is prety much unquantifiable. I know if I win my first bracelet this year, it will be, to me, the most prestigious thing I have ever done. But to the general population, I will be "some shmo no one has ever head of who must have gotten lucky." I don't think quantifying the meaning of a bracelet based on size of the field or the time frame is meaningless. Just because there's no one right answer doesn't make it useless, well, at least to me. The whole disussion came up because Daniel, then I think Miss Idaho and Ivey fan, had all kind of stated in one way or another that previous bracelets somehow had more importance than current ones, and my 'argument' if you will, is actually closer to exactly what you say, in that they are either more prestigious now (my personal view), or that, as you say, the comparison of previous events to current one's yields nothing that can really say that either event is more prestigious.Everything you say about the WSOP issues is very much dead on. The WSOP has a lot of work to do to recover from the bad press of this years events. To me, the change in the shootout event is strange, but not as rediculous as Daniel makes it out to be, as there is nothing in the sheet that says a minimum players per table. Does that mean that Harrah's handled it well? No, not at all. But honestly, I find the marked card issues far more condemning of the WSOP as a whole.But in all of these cases, I don't feel that it hinders the prestige of those who have won a bracelet this year, because I don't think any of the issues that have come up have destroyed the integrity of any one event enough to make winning it seem like less of an accomplishment. And, if I leave with no other point than this, its that I don't want those who have won a bracelet this year to have their feat belitted by people because they won a bracelet "in that crappy 2006 WSOP."Ray

Well said. I think we can agree on those points. Most importantly I think that those players out there grinding it out and taking there shot year after year have no reason to think their bracelets are meaningless. I , hopefully have never conveyed that. I just know that when you represent the pennicle of the poker world, you better present yourself as such. In that regard, the WSOP has failed. For the reasons that you have stated (marked cards) and others (shootout), Harrah's has some serious house cleaning to do if it wants to have any shot at maintaining the WSOPs prestige. Thats all I have for tonight Ray, I appreciate the conversation...after we worked out the semantics. GL to you this year.

[caeslinger 0]

Here's a few things to consider.In the early 80's to early 90's, there were no more than 13-17 events typically at the WSOP. Those events were all over the place, with stud, omaha, mixed couples, ladies, razz, etc.From 2000-2005 The number of events has increased from 25 to 45. This year there are 45 as well.From 2000-2005 NL went from 3 - 15 events. This year there are 19.From 2000-2005 Hold-em went from 8 - 25 events. This year there are 29.From 2000-2005 Omaha typically made up 5,6, or 7 of the events, this year was 5.Stud was also played 4,5, or 6 times a year, this year it will be played 3 times. Razz gets its one shot as usual. While the draw games only have one shot, just like last year, but less than the 2-3 that they have had in the past.HORSE of course made a comeback after being out last year.All in all I think it would be correct to say that the NL bracelet may not be as special as it once was, but the others may carry even more prestige.The biggest problem with the WSOP this year, seems to be a lack of on-site leadership. I'm not sure who is the official TD, but I don't believe it's Mr. Grooms anymore. Gone is Matt Savage as well. A well-seasoned TD can solve many, many of the issues before they ever become the slightest issue. Such as the situation with Andy during the H.O.R.S.E. event. As running a few tournaments, that completely floored me that there was that much of a fuss made (at least publicly with Andy) about the cards in that event. The same thing goes with Mr. Demetriou, if nothing else, the on-site supervisor should have recognized the problem and pulled him aside for the time being, promised him a refund, or whatever he felt fair. I'm sure Harry most of all just wanted someone to listen to what he was saying.This is a month and a half event, that as a tournament director, this is what your job is for that time. There is no such thing as time off for you, which is probably why Johnny and Matt moved on.

[XX44466XX 0]

Man...the forum has been so full of negative energy of late.I'm starting to question my own desire to play in the WSOP in 4 days.

Stay focused brotherman.I am.

[umop-apisdn 0]

Man...the forum has been so full of negative energy of late.I'm starting to question my own desire to play in the WSOP in 4 days.

If you win a bracelet, it won't mean anything now - might as well just spend the buyin on bottles of liquor.

[myenemy 0]

What a shame.....and what a bore...

[psujohn 0]

The problems around the WSOP have been more concerned with respecting the players and communicating with them than with anything that would diminish the value of a bracelet. The greatly increased number of bracelets available certainly does diminish the value of a bracelet. What's more prestigious - one of 10 bracelet winners or one of 100 bracelet winners?The "bad press" that surrounds the WSOP is hardly know outside of a very small subset of poker players who not only follow the daily happenings of the WSOP but also read poker forums where such things are discussed. There's no coverage of "scandal at the WSOP" on the 6 o'clock new or the New York Times. 95% of the people in this country don't even realize the WSOP is happening right now. It'll all be new to them when it airs on ESPN.It's impossible to compare "what's harder" winning a smaller event with more pros or a huge event with lots of novices. They take different skills and tactics. The most impressive of course would be doing well at both types of events.

[Orion071 0]

It seems to me that some of the WSOP prestige problems can be solved by raising the buy-in for all of the events, including the Main Event. $1000 WSOP tournaments? Who can take those seriously? The minimum buy-in to a WSOP event should be $2500. Have an equal number of $2500 and $5000 buy-in events, several $10,000 buy-in events, the $50,000 HORSE event and the $25,000 Main Event.I think the argument that raising the buy-in prices out the little guy is absurd. Only the pros and the already rich buy directly into the event. The satellites will still be the way to go for everyone else. Just being in the Main Event should be prestigious for the recreational player, similar to the way that any golfer has a chance to play in the U.S. Open. But for a regular guy to play in the Open, he has to qualify through regional and sectional tournaments. Once he's in, he's a great story for TV if he happens to be in contention on Sunday. This is what it should be like for the amateurs who make it far in the Main Event. Now it's a story if any pro makes it to the final table.I'm not as concerned about the make-up of the different events, although I would like to see more non-Hold'em events. My favorite WSOP TV episode is still the Razz event with Howard Lederer a few years ago. But still something as simple as raising the buy-in will help control the size of the events as well as maintaining a lot of the prestige.

[RayPowers 0]

*SNIP*All in all I think it would be correct to say that the NL bracelet may not be as special as it once was, but the others may carry even more prestige.The biggest problem with the WSOP this year, seems to be a lack of on-site leadership. I'm not sure who is the official TD, but I don't believe it's Mr. Grooms anymore. Gone is Matt Savage as well. A well-seasoned TD can solve many, many of the issues before they ever become the slightest issue. Such as the situation with Andy during the H.O.R.S.E. event. As running a few tournaments, that completely floored me that there was that much of a fuss made (at least publicly with Andy) about the cards in that event. The same thing goes with Mr. Demetriou, if nothing else, the on-site supervisor should have recognized the problem and pulled him aside for the time being, promised him a refund, or whatever he felt fair. I'm sure Harry most of all just wanted someone to listen to what he was saying.

Second point first, Grooms actually talks about why he left on 2+2. Here's a thread started by him where you can probably do some reading between the lines.First point, I am not sure that I can really say that more bracelets means that a bracelet is less prestigious. I can agree they are less scarce, but I am not sure that's the same thing. Here's how I look at it. Let's say we run one and only one Hold Em tournament ever, and give out a bracelet for it. Is that bracelet scarce? Yes! Is it prestigious? Yes, but actually in a strange way, slightly less so than one would think because one and only one tournament ever could possibly have just been won by a lucky person. But the more events there are, the more opportunities for the "cream to rise to the top" so to speak. Statistically, more bracelets in general means that the odds of one random luckbox to win a bracelet has also increased, but I don't think enough to devalue all the other bracelets won by competent people. But this one *is* totally a "my opinion" thing, and if you feel differently I certainly take no offense. :)Ray

Well said. I think we can agree on those points. Most importantly I think that those players out there grinding it out and taking there shot year after year have no reason to think their bracelets are meaningless. I , hopefully have never conveyed that. I just know that when you represent the pennicle of the poker world, you better present yourself as such. In that regard, the WSOP has failed. For the reasons that you have stated (marked cards) and others (shootout), Harrah's has some serious house cleaning to do if it wants to have any shot at maintaining the WSOPs prestige. Thats all I have for tonight Ray, I appreciate the conversation...after we worked out the semantics. GL to you this year.

No, you never conveyed anthing like that. My original post was not really directed at you, and if it appeared to be, I apologize. It was at the thread as a whole, and some of the attitudes coming out of it.Thanks for the wishes of luck. Despite being 100% freerolled for this entire WSOP (any events I play this year are free for me), I have yet to play an event, and I may not get to. How lame is that? Being a family man is great, but it sure cuts into your poker time. :PRay

[dapokerbum 0]

The problems around the WSOP have been more concerned with respecting the players and communicating with them than with anything that would diminish the value of a bracelet. The greatly increased number of bracelets available certainly does diminish the value of a bracelet. What's more prestigious - one of 10 bracelet winners or one of 100 bracelet winners? The "bad press" that surrounds the WSOP is hardly know outside of a very small subset of poker players who not only follow the daily happenings of the WSOP but also read poker forums where such things are discussed. There's no coverage of "scandal at the WSOP" on the 6 o'clock new or the New York Times. 95% of the people in this country don't even realize the WSOP is happening right now. It'll all be new to them when it airs on ESPN.It's impossible to compare "what's harder" winning a smaller event with more pros or a huge event with lots of novices. They take different skills and tactics. The most impressive of course would be doing well at both types of events.

I think that is the thing for me that takes away some of the prestige from before. Yes there are WAY more people playing but there are now 45 more bracelets that someone can win. JMO

[JadeTiger 0]

No, you never conveyed anthing like that. My original post was not really directed at you, and if it appeared to be, I apologize. It was at the thread as a whole, and some of the attitudes coming out of it.Thanks for the wishes of luck. Despite being 100% freerolled for this entire WSOP (any events I play this year are free for me), I have yet to play an event, and I may not get to. How lame is that? Being a family man is great, but it sure cuts into your poker time. Ray

Freerolled and you havent had a chance to play! well thats the worst beat i think ive heard in a long time. Well hopefully you can make it to some of the events. I know a few people would love to be freerolled for the entire WSOP if not even just an event or two. I understand family is important so props to you for that ...maybe they will let you have a little fun after being so devoted. Either way, GL!