2007 Wsop Schedule

[sdnuol 0]

the WSOP is all about the braclets if you took away the braclets for some events that'd be equal to taking away the stanley cup from hockey everyother year

[Edenfield 0]

the WSOP is all about the braclets if you took away the braclets for some events that'd be equal to taking away the stanley cup from hockey everyother year

Not really because there is only one Stanley Cup, not 5. I would ideally have only the bracelet tournaments but TV, Harrah's etc would want more events than I'd allow

[mspokerdiva 0]

The 25K HU Matches would be phenomenal.

I agree, I was wondering why they don't play more PL 8 or better Omaha. I really like that game, and can never find it spread anywhere live.

[mspokerdiva 0]

I think this schedule sounds great, would love to see a PL omaha 8 or better tourney in there.

[Hocoino 0]

This schedule will drop the number of overall players in the WSOP considerablly. That's not necesarilly a complaint though. It might not be fair, but it's true. Few ppl. want to play Omaha. Fewer want to play stud. The one alternative game that might make a comeback is 5 Card Draw (NL high).... seriously who didn't start playing Draw? That's somthing Harra's will want to balance. But 10 NLHE tourny's seems fair.Right now the WSOP has very high numbers of NL Hold Em players in all the tournys. With fewer NL Hold Em tourny's the number of players in each will increase enormously. That's somthing else important to consider I must point this out b/c I think it every time Daniel whines about bein tired of Hold Em. Simply because some high limit pro's are tired of NL Hold Em doesn't mean the majority of the poker fans are. Should every game have it's own tourny? Yes. I'm not against the 'alternative games' I like them. And I think it can start a market for them. I don't think next year is the time though, but I'm curious how the alt events will draw TV coverage. This is my personal opinion... and I understand it has some serious drawbacks, buuut... I think the main event should be a $100,000 buy in. High stakes poker should determine the poker champion of the world. Not a guy who got in on a $1 sat. There is a place for that though, I like the cheap sats. but just not for the main event.

[hime 0]

I must point this out b/c I think it every time Daniel whines about bein tired of Hold Em. Simply because some high limit pro's are tired of NL Hold Em doesn't mean the majority of the poker fans are.

Making the pros happy leads to good TV. I can't believe people still watch the WPT...

[HarryDemetriou 0]

I do not seem to see this written anywhere in this thread but the heads up event for previous bracelet winners is not original.They used to have one in the past at The WSOP (They also had a chinese poker bracelet event too once upon a time I hear).Schedules according to individual players will always differ and generate disagreement and of course there will be more No Limit Holdem evens than any other kind as they are currently more popular.My main gripe about devaluing the bracelets (although I would be glad to have any one of them at present as I have yet to win one) is why they seem to have more than one event of each type.There should be one $1000 freezeout and one $1000 with rebuys and One of each $1500, $2000, $2500, $3000, $5000 and $10000 no limit freezeouts and not more than one.Having more than one of each devalues the events imo.They should also have (say) $3k, $5k and $10k Omaha and Stud events too.If they want to have more than one (say) $1500 nl event then I would suggest they play them down to one table each and then allow those finalists to carry forward their chips to a super final table where the winner gets the bracelet and would be known as the champion for that entry for that year.

[sdnuol 0]

I do not seem to see this written anywhere in this thread but the heads up event for previous bracelet winners is not original.They used to have one in the past at The WSOP (They also had a chinese poker bracelet event too once upon a time I hear).Schedules according to individual players will always differ and generate disagreement and of course there will be more No Limit Holdem evens than any other kind as they are currently more popular.My main gripe about devaluing the bracelets (although I would be glad to have any one of them at present as I have yet to win one) is why they seem to have more than one event of each type.There should be one $1000 freezeout and one $1000 with rebuys and One of each $1500, $2000, $2500, $3000, $5000 and $10000 no limit freezeouts and not more than one.Having more than one of each devalues the events imo.They should also have (say) $3k, $5k and $10k Omaha and Stud events too.If they want to have more than one (say) $1500 nl event then I would suggest they play them down to one table each and then allow those finalists to carry forward their chips to a super final table where the winner gets the bracelet and would be known as the champion for that entry for that year.

i like that. itd be like a super-shootout

Not really because there is only one Stanley Cup, not 5. I would ideally have only the bracelet tournaments but TV, Harrah's etc would want more events than I'd allow

okay take away the trophys from the PGA??? either way its the same idea.

[Edenfield 0]

okay take away the trophys from the PGA??? either way its the same idea.

I'm not saying take the bracelets away, I'm saying don't have 8 NLHE events as each one devalues the last and doesn't show who the best NLHE players is. The PGA doesn't have 8 events on the same course!

[Dratj 0]

The WSOP brand was NEVER about the "every man." The satellites were for the "every man" but the tournaments were for the "big dogs." I went to the WSOP in 1996 and tried my butt off to get into a tournament. I couldn't do it. I went back in 97' to try some satellites again, but just missed. Finally, in 98' I got my chance and did well with it. It was once a struggle to get into those tournaments and the buy ins have gotten LOWER since 98- much lower. If Benny Binion were alive he'd be turning over in his grave right now. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. Look how watered down the bracelets have become? Tell me, any of you, who won the $1000 no rebuy NLH tournament? Or how about the $2000 NLH ? There used to be a time where the whole poker world knew. Those were the good old days.

I agree that the bracelets have been watered down but I think it's great that the everyman can play in a cheaper event. Its good for poker in general. It fuels the growth of poker. The more people there are playing poker, the more endorsement money that the top pros make. It's the success of the everyman that makes the everyman want to try playing poker. Without the everyman, the endorsements for the top pros would not be as juicy or even existent. We all know who the top dogs are, everyone knows that Chip Reese's bracelet in Horse is much more significant than the guy who won some 1k tourney. In summary, the WSOP was not about he everyman in the past but it was because of an everyman (moneymaker) that poker has become the boom that it is. The WSOP has changed to reflect that fact. The prestige is maintained by having events like the 50K horse.

[DrDeeb 0]

I know Daniel wants to gear the poker world into other games besides NLHE, and his new schedule definitely supports that. I personally am in favor of it; I dont like the 100 $1,500 NL events. IMO, The prestige of a bracelet is definetely deteriorating with the large numbers in the field making it more like a game of luck than skill. I love the rough draft (even though it not perfect), but I don't think harrah's will like it. I don't think it will come close to the amount of money they made this year. ESPN will probably have a problem with it too, considering they hardly air anything besides HE.The only suggestion that I have, which hasn't been mentioned before, is that the H.O.R.S.E. event buy in should not be higher than the main event. The H.O.R.S.E. event is taking away a lot of the prestige that the main event holds. My suggestion is that you make the main event a 50K buy in, and the HORSE event 25K. If its mandatory that the starting stacks match the buyin, adjust the blinds accordingly to w/e structure seems right. This will probably reduce the number of entrance to the main event to around 2,000, and I don't think the HORSE event will be affected that much. This will make winning the main event slightly more reasonable, without decreasing the prize pool. I love your rough draft, but I just dont think the idea of putting more emphasis on other games besides NLHE will work RIGHT NOW. It will take time for the public to show any significant interest in it, but today everything is in NLHE.

[blueodum 0]

self-deleted

[AADoubleSuited 0]

I think what you're doing for the WSOP is keeping the integrity of the tournament. I love how you support the addition of many more non-holdem events, especially stud 8, and omaha hi/lo events along with others. I really hope your schedule will be adopted for 2007. My question is this for Daniel, are you in favour of the final table of the HORSE event being all NLHE? Personally I feel ripped off when I will be watching ESPN broadcast, I'll be so sick of watching NLHE by then. I want to see the pros play all of the aspects that make HORSE such a great game.

[Phitau_Trucker 0]

So in the last Video Blog Daniel you mentioned that you had wrote up what you think would be a great schedule for next years WSOP. Just hoping to see it typed out here because I am curious as to what you have in mind.

I think changing up the games and placing new emphasis on the different events is best for the game of poker. If everything revolved around one single game then eventually all of the other games would be phased out. NLHE is a great game and brought a lot of poluarity to poker, but in the same since a lot of people that only have contact to poker through the telivision only know it as NLHE. Placing more emphasis on games such as H.O.R.S.E. and televising several different levels of this game will keep the same interest in poker but broaden the general public's view on what poker is. I believe I read that Daniel stated that H.O.R.S.E. should be the new main event (if it wasn't Daniel then I apologize). I agree with that along with increasing the buy in. Maybe not to the extreme of $50,000 but maybe just to $25,000. But no matter the price it would still be a main event that anyone who is serious about playing would enter and it would be the true test of the best poker players.I don't believe that NLHE is the ultimate test of a poker player and a person should not be able to obtain the most prestigous title in poker by focusing on one event. You don't even have to know how to play a stud game or understand what a low hand is to be the Main Event Champion. I know that this concept breaks the tradition of a $10,000 buy in and a NLHE main event but times change. $10,000 isn't what it use to be and poker has evolved to a broader range of games that require high levels of skill that should be taken into account in the Main Event.

[paulg72 0]

I think changing up the games and placing new emphasis on the different events is best for the game of poker. If everything revolved around one single game then eventually all of the other games would be phased out. NLHE is a great game and brought a lot of poluarity to poker, but in the same since a lot of people that only have contact to poker through the telivision only know it as NLHE. Placing more emphasis on games such as H.O.R.S.E. and televising several different levels of this game will keep the same interest in poker but broaden the general public's view on what poker is. I believe I read that Daniel stated that H.O.R.S.E. should be the new main event (if it wasn't Daniel then I apologize). I agree with that along with increasing the buy in. Maybe not to the extreme of $50,000 but maybe just to $25,000. But no matter the price it would still be a main event that anyone who is serious about playing would enter and it would be the true test of the best poker players.I don't believe that NLHE is the ultimate test of a poker player and a person should not be able to obtain the most prestigous title in poker by focusing on one event. You don't even have to know how to play a stud game or understand what a low hand is to be the Main Event Champion. I know that this concept breaks the tradition of a $10,000 buy in and a NLHE main event but times change. $10,000 isn't what it use to be and poker has evolved to a broader range of games that require high levels of skill that should be taken into account in the Main Event.

i think it is madness that they have such small buyin events (not that i even stump up the money for these!!) The WSOP should be the best of the best, it shouldny be a crap shoot for anyone who can come up with $1500. Also surely it is time for the main even to up the ante. $10k in the 70s was a LOT of money but it should be more like 75k-100k now days to adj for inflation. The main event if growing each year as it is getting relativly cheaper to enter.