Alina 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 With that said.....The WSOP should be more like golf where you have to qualify to qualify to get into a major tourney...could you imagine if the Masters was opened to anyone who walked out on the first tee on the Thursday morning and paid whatever the entry fee was? Not saying that the top pros might not win it, but you would get alot of people you'd never heard of walking around with green jackets only to never hear from them again in a winning sense.Actually under this idea wouldn't you get the same result if the qualification is open to everybody on the same basis. Non-pros would still get through in numbers and (most) pros wouldn't get through the qualifying rounds. The alternative would be to invite pros to the main round, but it seems odd to handicap the supposedly lesser players especially as everyone is paying the same.. Link to post Share on other sites
sjm20 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 The thing about poker is that anyone can run lucky on one day or one week, regardless of their skill. How many times has a guy that has never played in your home game before, come through the field and win a tournament? With us it happens probably twice a month. The World Series of Poker Main Event crowns a champion in a main stream way, and the reason he is referred to as the "World Champion" has a lot to do with the publicity surrounding the event. When's the last time you referred to Tuan Le or Alan Goehring as the World Champion following their WPT Championship wins. Even the WSOP Player of the Year is faulty because it only incorporates the luck or skill of a player over the period of one month. And Jeff Madsen may win that award after three (or four, I could be wrong) final tables. Would you consider him the best player in the world? Would you consider Mike Sexton the World Champion of Hold 'Em? After all, he won the Tournament of Champions, which was an event you had to either qualify for or be invited.I have read a lot of complaints about the size of the fields and good ways to narrow the field, but the point of the World Series when Moneymaker won was:"The allure to poker is that you can pay ten thousand dollars and sit down next to a World Champion, you can't do that in any other sport."The biggest allure to poker is that this remains true. Most pros, besides Hellmuth, probably could care less about who is deemed the best player in the world. There will never be a true world champion because as Greg Raymer said on Cardplayer one year ago, " We could crown the best player in the world, but the event would have to take six months or more."The World Series of Poker Championship is what it is, the main event of a month long tournament. Just as many WPT tournaments are the main events of their specific tournament stops. Every year, one professional has lasted the field and survived to the final table. Professionals may be angry that they are being donked by horrible players, but to be fair, that is happening to ALL of us. No matter where we play: b&m, homegames, or online sites, we are all victims of the poker boom as much as we are beneficiaries of it. We have no problem finding games to play anymore, but we are handcuffed by bad players that refuse to lay down cards because they saw Gus Hansen win a big pot online with them. The significance of the main event is only relevant as long as we put emphasis on it. To the average man, Joe Hachem may have been the World Champion last year, but would you, as a poker player, rather sit across from him, or Phil Ivey?I know which player I am more terrified of... Link to post Share on other sites
Alina 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 The significance of the main event is only relevant as long as we put emphasis on it. To the average man, Joe Hachem may have been the World Champion last year, but would you, as a poker player, rather sit across from him, or Phil Ivey?I know which player I am more terrified of...Yeah! No way I would want to take on Hachem the world champ. I'd avoid Ivey on the golf course though, hope he does the grand slam. Link to post Share on other sites
psujohn 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Do you seriously think that the winner of the world cup is the best soccer team in the world? Or that the winner of the BCS championship is the best college football team? Or that the winner of the Super Bowl is the best pro football team?Any single elimination format where skills are closely matched or luck is involved at all (and pretty much all sports have some luck factor) cannot claim to crown the "best". Champion means you won the championship event. Nothing more. If you want to crown the "best" you'd first need to define best in some meaningful and measurable way. Link to post Share on other sites
DNIQUE420 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Do you seriously think that the winner of the world cup is the best soccer team in the world? Or that the winner of the BCS championship is the best college football team? Or that the winner of the Super Bowl is the best pro football team?Any single elimination format where skills are closely matched or luck is involved at all (and pretty much all sports have some luck factor) cannot claim to crown the "best". Champion means you won the championship event. Nothing more. If you want to crown the "best" you'd first need to define best in some meaningful and measurable way.WELL SAID WHOOHOO!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Alina 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Do you seriously think that the winner of the world cup is the best soccer team in the world? Or that the winner of the BCS championship is the best college football team? Or that the winner of the Super Bowl is the best pro football team?Any single elimination format where skills are closely matched or luck is involved at all (and pretty much all sports have some luck factor) cannot claim to crown the "best". Champion means you won the championship event. Nothing more. If you want to crown the "best" you'd first need to define best in some meaningful and measurable way.Most major sports (I agree poker is not a sport but game of chance) define the best exactly that way, by a elimination competition. And most people do find it meanigful. You are at liberty not to and are entilted to your opinion albeit wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
Dave23 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I don't understand why everyone wants to see the 'television pros' win the main event every year. Frankly i couldn't care less who wins it, i just want the chance to play in it, as i have at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites
fleung22 1 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 How about making the ME a rebuy event?That way the Pros could rebuy and the internet qualifiers would get weeded out.Maybe start with 50k in chips instead of 10k also.The Pros would be able to fade more suckouts and the like with an increased starting stack and the potential to rebuy.It would still be a huge field as long as all the internet sites are qualifying players, so it would not deter the joe schmo's who qualify online, it would just be harder for them to win it all.haha...if they did everything you suggested it would take 2 months for the tournament to finish under the current blind structure. Link to post Share on other sites
HoldemPokerPlyr 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Personally, I feel that the main event should be changed to the H.O.R.S.E event. The buy in is alot higher, so the only way you'd be able to get into it is if you're a professional, rich, or you've won a satellite. Also, it's not just Hold'em, H.O.R.S.E tests your skills in different games. Alright, alright. $50,000 is alittle high for the most of us, I know. However, we could lower the buyin to $10,000 if we had to. It would attract alot of bad players (like the main event does now) but it would test the players on games besides hold'em. Which would eliminate about 80% of the field right there. :)On the side note, Hachem and Raymer I think have proved themselves to the poker world. Both are great poker players. Moneymaker is the only one out of the three that I feel was a fluke. -HoldemPokerPlyr Link to post Share on other sites
hankfucious 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 All this talk about about the true "World Champion" is absurd. I'm pretty sure if all you guys qualified from the internet and hit a huge rush of cards and won the Main Event you wouldn't even be opening these types of threads. That's the beauty of the poker as the average joe gets his shot against the pros and can win. Link to post Share on other sites
jjdylan 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 i dont get why you people are so hard on for a pro to win the main event. If DN won the main event this year, would that make him the best player in the world any more than if pokerstars qualifier #3215 wins?? No. Thats the nature of tournaments and competition in general. Like someone said above, we're the pittsburgh steelers really the best team in the NFL last year? Were the Texas Longhorns REALLY better than USC last year?? probably not...but thats how the sporting world works. So all these theorys and ideas to change the main event just so a name you recognise can win is stupid. Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I see the ten thousand dollar buy in as the qualifying requirement for the tourny. Link to post Share on other sites
jack24bauer24 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 The great thing about the ME is that anyone can play if they fork over the $10000 and play against the best in the game. What other sporting type event can you say that? I can't go and take a breakaway against Martin Brodeur in a playoff game, I can't catch a pass from Brett Favre in the SuperBowl and I can't dunk against Michael Jordan. The ME of the WSOP lets anyone play against the best and the one who wins the tournament becomes a multi millionaire....why is that so bad? Who cares if its a pro who wins, it doesn't matter at all, and the term "world champion" is just something the public or media creates, it doesn't have any effect on who's the best player out there. I don't think many people believe that Moneymaker is a better player than Phil Ivey simply because he's won the main event. Link to post Share on other sites
fugeboston 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 With that said.....The WSOP should be more like golf where you have to qualify to qualify to get into a major tourney...could you imagine if the Masters was opened to anyone who walked out on the first tee on the Thursday morning and paid whatever the entry fee was? Not saying that the top pros might not win it, but you would get alot of people you'd never heard of walking around with green jackets only to never hear from them again in a winning sense.If anyone could walk up to the masters and pay an entry fee to get in, The same people would still win the masters, every year. Always a top pro, it isn't comparable to poker. Link to post Share on other sites
hockeydude758 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 You make some great points. The PPT is working towards this. Only qualified players who have EARNED their way onto the tour are allowed to play. Hopefully, the PPT will continue to grow and I think they're off to a great start.However, the winner of the ME deserves some recognition as he beat out thousands of players who all had the same opportunities as him. And no one honestly believes that just because someone won the ME they are the "best player in the world"A pro will win the main event again. To think otherwise is crazy. They can (and are already doing so) adapt to the new style of poker.i think the ppt was one of the best things that can happen for poker Link to post Share on other sites
wylecoyote 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Happy you used the golf analogy.Not that an amateur has won, but anyone can qualify and has a chance to win the US open.All you have to do is work your way up the qualifying field.So lets say joe poker player wins a WSOP tourney on PP and qualifies for the ME. Sounds similar to the US open system for golf???Here is an idea. Maybe because of the growth of poker, the accessability of the training the pros give all of us in their books and videos it is easier for an amateur to hit close to a pro players status in poker.Because of this only the truly patient, and flexible pros have had repeated success in the WSOP events.Dont forget some of the other events are well over 800 people and how many bracelets does helmuth have? How close was DN from making the final table in the main event. Deeb, Raymer, Hachem. Also remember the luck factor. Talented or not sometimes the cards are just dead and it may not be your day.I am for having the tournament of champions after the main event. Bracelt winners only from the past 5-10 years 25,000 buy in.That should make for some good tv. Which is what I think you are after.The US open is the hardest tournament in golf. It is this way to identify the best player in the world over four days.The main event does the same thing right now. My prediction DN will be in the main event final table in two years after a top 100 finish next year. He will kick my *** as we go heads up!Cheers Link to post Share on other sites
wylecoyote 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Also with 70 million players 8700 is .01 percent of the poker population. Just like the masters.There are donks. Just like the masters. (insert lefty comments at anytime)The winner of the main event has played against some of the best players in the world that could get there on that day, pro or amateur.So for that moment, on that day. He is the world champion.That is till PartyPoker, or Pokerstars or any other site hosts a tournament on the following sunday. Its a one shot deal, just like the NCAA's you need to be good, but you also need a bit of luck.I am sure even DN likes to have a bit of luck on his side.Cheersp.s. Very proud of DN and his accomplishment at the WSOP ME this year. He kicked it short stacked Link to post Share on other sites
cap gusto 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 there can be no hating on lefty! sure...he's a **** and makes some dumbass decisions lately but he is still straight ballin. look at his career wins. Link to post Share on other sites
wylecoyote 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 there can be no hating on lefty! sure...he's a **** and makes some dumbass decisions lately but he is still straight ballin. look at his career wins.the comment on lefty was a bit of a joke... just like daly is a beached whale etc... Anyway does anyone believe you can get through a field of 8700 plus players without any poker knowledge or skill?If so I'll drop ten grand on my mom for next years meIt is harder for a pro to win than 15 years ago. But the sport is bigger. So it should be harder to win!Anyway that is my rantCheers Link to post Share on other sites
cap gusto 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 i'll concede daly's an effing whale. talk about a heart attack waiting to happen. I predict daly will be the first person to die during a televised golf tourney. Link to post Share on other sites
adamkadmon 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 i heard moneymaker would have been a real player if he wouldnt have gotten addicted to cocain> Link to post Share on other sites
Alina 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 i heard moneymaker would have been a real player if he wouldnt have gotten addicted to cocain>Don't knock Moneymaker. One world title and he heralded the poker boom, which people like DN have lived off. Link to post Share on other sites
rivergirl 2 Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 i think some people completely missed my point....First off, i was upset at the comparison to golf that someone else started in a topic, which is what started my rant....someone compared Greg Raymer to Tiger Woods (obvious frustration)Then i started thinking that maybe ...just maybe there is a better way to crown a real world champ....and make it something not "just anybody" can do. In golf, you would have to win a series of tourneys to get your card, to get into the majors, you have to prove yourself worthy through your appearances while you've held your card. You can't just walk up on the 1st tee at Augusta and pay $10,000 and play (at least not on Master's weekend).What i'm suggesting is maybe a little more similar....Maybe like a tour, with memberships, that isn't exactly as easy as just walking in and paying. Money from qualifying tourneys could be held (a small percentage of course) and tv revenues and sponsorships and things could conceivably be added money for bigger events, that way you're not taking away from the prize pool of dead money, you're just making it so that the person winning the title is deservedly crown "World Champion". You could even have a ranking system and pros with certain money earnings have exemptions from qualifiers. Just some thoughts. Link to post Share on other sites
Dratj 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 i think some people completely missed my point....First off, i was upset at the comparison to golf that someone else started in a topic, which is what started my rant....someone compared Greg Raymer to Tiger Woods (obvious frustration)Then i started thinking that maybe ...just maybe there is a better way to crown a real world champ....and make it something not "just anybody" can do. In golf, you would have to win a series of tourneys to get your card, to get into the majors, you have to prove yourself worthy through your appearances while you've held your card. You can't just walk up on the 1st tee at Augusta and pay $10,000 and play (at least not on Master's weekend).What i'm suggesting is maybe a little more similar....Maybe like a tour, with memberships, that isn't exactly as easy as just walking in and paying. Money from qualifying tourneys could be held (a small percentage of course) and tv revenues and sponsorships and things could conceivably be added money for bigger events, that way you're not taking away from the prize pool of dead money, you're just making it so that the person winning the title is deservedly crown "World Champion". You could even have a ranking system and pros with certain money earnings have exemptions from qualifiers. Just some thoughts.Nope, the allure of the WSOP is that anyone that can afford to play can. That's why it's become so popular. Link to post Share on other sites
Squamch 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 maybe they should have a giant $50,000 HORSE event... oh, wait... 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