Money022 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Basically, you're saying that the pros should boycott the main event unless Harrahs makes it easier for one of them to win it.Do you see why that's ridiculous?Can't break it down any better than that. Link to post Share on other sites
Teffy 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 I heard two pros say at the WSOP that they were'nt going to play next year--it was a circus in 2006. It's bad for poker.Who? Where? when? this isnt even worth the effort. Link to post Share on other sites
Dratj 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Let the ME grow. Link to post Share on other sites
chessazhole 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 I heard two pros say at the WSOP that they were'nt going to play next year--it was a circus in 2006. It's bad for poker.We all know that Harrah's is planning on letting as many people enter the WSOP Main Event in 2007 as want to. I have read an estimate that Harrahs hopes to attract 20,000 players for the ME alone.That is bs. That is not a tournament to select a poker champion. I attended the WSOP ME in the 1980s. It was good for poker's image. Now it is bad for a top pro like Negreanu to play in the ME. Pros don't look good playing donkeys on ESPN. To the viewer who doesn't know poker, it looks like the donkey outplayed the pro. That couldn't happen in the PGA--no amatuer could beat Tiger Woods. If they could, then the viewer would think Tiger wasn't so great after all. This is what is happening to the image of the poker pros.Time for the poker elite to join together and refuse to play at the 2007 WSOP main event unless Harrahs can have a satellite tournament for the 200 or so top money-making pros and guarantee them that at least 5 seats at the final table will be reserved for the pros.Also, all of these donks who win their entry online or through satellites shouldn't be allowed to play against players who paid $10000 to sit at a table. There should be a satellite for the online donks and Moneymaker wannabes who have turned the ME sour--they aren't playing with their own money so they start playing like maniacs against the player who had to pay 10 large for his entry. That's not a level playing field.I heard two pros in Vegas at the WSOP say off camera that they were not going to play next year--that the tournament was bull. I support them if they do. Poker needs a better example of a tournament.Wow OP is a complete idiot. If there was a cap on the ME entrants, online poker traffic would go down because ppl would not be able to sat into it. That is a huge thing that sites offer, wsop seats, and it would hurt them if they lost that business. Also, many people play poker because they think they can chris moneymaker it big. Take away the wsop and there is no glaring 12mil prize to be won, and you lose the fantasy players/donks who make up these rooms. Overall, it would hurt the entire world of poker in terms of population and dead money while dissapointing endless amounts of people so you can watch a better hour of norman chad cracking ****ty jokes. Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnarr 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 If you make a living--any living--playing poker, then you are a professional poker player.Well then every player at the final table this year is a professional by your definition. There are thousands of people who are "pros" by that definition. Most of them on the internet.Poker is a trickle up economy. Money rises to the top. If you honestly believe the top pros dont salivate at the thought of $80 000 000 being thrown around then you dont have a clue. If you dont understand what Im saying think about where alot of Moneymakers money has gone the past few years. Whos pockets is it in ?Anyhow Im with alot of posters in this thread I honestly believe you are just a troll Link to post Share on other sites
Petoria 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 That is the most idiotic idea in the history of this board.And don't insult beans.Flashback: two pair should beat trips.Let's say that this is an easy top 3 though. Link to post Share on other sites
burgerman 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 If the pros are complaining, I suggest they play better. The popularity of poker is making them millions and millions. The better players will prevail.Burgerman Link to post Share on other sites
Golden 2 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Flashback: two pair should beat trips.Let's say that this is an easy top 3 though.QFMFT Link to post Share on other sites
uahphysics 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 This might be the worst/most rediculous thread ever.My major beef with the arguement is this:Poker is not like other sports.In Basketball, or Football....you have to be selected to be a professional.In golf, you have to be consistantly good for a long time, and qualify for tournaments. An amateur "could" get lucky and beat a pro one hole, if the pro messes up, or by some freak accident, but an amateur couldn't get lucky and beat a pro for an entire tournament.In poker, you are a professional by virtue of making money, plain and simple. the "pros" you talk about are just normal people who play poker well and have made a living from it. There's no way to tell who makes a living playing poker.Do you consider Dan Harrington a pro? Funny, because he still owns and works at his business in MA, Anchor Mortgage. So, because of that I assume you're talking about name pros who have tournament wins and things like that. Do you consider Gavin Smith to be a pro? Certainly you should, with him being wpt player of the year and all, but how many WSOP bracelts does he have? Zero How many bracelets does Mike Sica have? One more than Gavin Smith, would he be let into your "pro" satellite? There's this thing called thinking before you speak, you should try it sometime. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Jack Harris is putting on a trolling clinic. Link to post Share on other sites
finztotheleft 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 I'm joining the boycott until Harrah's comes to it's senses or until I find a way to win a sattelite Link to post Share on other sites
Jack Harris 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Author Share Posted September 4, 2006 Jack Harris is putting on a trolling clinic.Spademan. I enjoy playing online, and this board helps give me an edge, and takes the edge off my play. I've won $3800 this weekend alone. Banging heads with these witless wonders has gotten me over some bad beats. I used to steam. But I think they just don't like my avatar. Link to post Share on other sites
Stylin_Fish 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 The only facts that have come out in this entire thread are#1. Jamie Gold is a clown#2. The Main Event is a crapshoot#3. Spademan is the sexiest human being alive. Link to post Share on other sites
kkcountry 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 1972 was the first year the buyin for the WSOP ME was $10kAccording to an inflation calculator:What cost $10000 in 1972 would cost $45611.08 in 2005.Gee, if only they had a 50k event at the WSOP that could be today's Main Event...Nevermind, ignore my post, this thread doesn't deserve anything that insightful. Link to post Share on other sites
Jack Harris 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Author Share Posted September 4, 2006 1972 was the first year the buyin for the WSOP ME was $10kAccording to an inflation calculator:What cost $10000 in 1972 would cost $45611.08 in 2005.Gee, if only they had a 50k event at the WSOP that could be today's Main Event...Awesome point, kkcountry. You are absolutely right. But the WSOP won't go for it, because they are all about the money, and the new owners of the WSOP are not great for poker. Link to post Share on other sites
chessazhole 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Awesome point, kkcountry. You are absolutely right. But the WSOP won't go for it, because they are all about the money, and the new owners of the WSOP are not great for poker.Like the genius he is, Jack will keep disregarding everybody's logic!!!! Come vote for him in my pole so we can settle this once and for all! NH Jack NH Link to post Share on other sites
Jack Harris 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Author Share Posted September 4, 2006 Like the genius he is, Jack will keep disregarding everybody's logic!!!! Come vote for him in my pole so we can settle this once and for all! NH Jack NHWhy don't you stay on-topic and stop the pathetic self promotion of your post. This post is about pros calling for a boycott of the 2007 WSOP. You guys weren't there in the 80s watching the WSOP. Even DN was 2 years old when the big guns were shooting it out at Binions kind of grubby hotel. When you went in there you felt the mob prescence and poker had a patina of danger to it, which the hot ladies liked. Looking at the WSOP today all we see is alot of geeks there on sat scholarships for $2 and heros made of Joe Hachem, Raymer and Moneymaker. Stu Unger could have demolished these spuds. Link to post Share on other sites
HangukMiguk 8 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 dfalkhupiaahglakhd ui hdiuahbuigfa nia hngiuahnuiad hfija hdfija hjfh aiou hfaiuo hnfhjka hfpai jhfpoia jfpoi ajpoi jfpiao fjoiajdfokajdifo ajpio poaj dfioja piof jpjoa ijfiaod jfioaj diof japoidjfakifjaiojfadiojf daipos jfpiasj fasis jfsakjk;jijpijjoijniojpoi ioo ij dka; fjoais fjao;kfj ;ka f;afja f a; fa faio fjoa;idj ijfio;a djfnbi'm sorry, that's all i got out of your post, as i was remarking about how similar your avatar and gavin griffin's penis is. Link to post Share on other sites
Golden 2 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Why don't you stay on-topic and stop the pathetic self promotion of your post. This post is about pros calling for a boycott of the 2007 WSOP. You guys weren't there in the 80s watching the WSOP. Even DN was 2 years old when the big guns were shooting it out at Binions kind of grubby hotel. When you went in there you felt the mob prescence and poker had a patina of danger to it, which the hot ladies liked. Looking at the WSOP today all we see is alot of geeks there on sat scholarships for $2 and heros made of Joe Hachem, Raymer and Moneymaker. Stu Unger could have demolished these spuds.Calm down old man. Link to post Share on other sites
HangukMiguk 8 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Calm down old man.agreed, who turned back on his geritol drip? Link to post Share on other sites
IQCrash 1 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Why don't you stay on-topic and stop the pathetic self promotion of your post. This post is about pros calling for a boycott of the 2007 WSOP. You guys weren't there in the 80s watching the WSOP. Even DN was 2 years old when the big guns were shooting it out at Binions kind of grubby hotel. When you went in there you felt the mob prescence and poker had a patina of danger to it, which the hot ladies liked. Looking at the WSOP today all we see is alot of geeks there on sat scholarships for $2 and heros made of Joe Hachem, Raymer and Moneymaker. Stu Unger could have demolished these spuds.Die in a car fire. Link to post Share on other sites
Chalkeater 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Time for the poker elite to join together and refuse to play at the 2007 WSOP main event unless Harrahs can have a satellite tournament for the 200 or so top money-making pros and guarantee them that at least 5 seats at the final table will be reserved for the pros.What a fantastic idea! I know my favorite episode to watch of the WPT (which also always features the best poker play) is Ladies Night - and this is due to the fact that their selection process is REMARKABLY similar to that you've just outlined.Yep. Ladies night kicks the tail out of the Five Diamond or the Legends. Every stinkin' year. Jennifer Tilly was the real champion of the WPT last year, screw Gavin or Joe. Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 I just recently started getting dandruff. I don't think its actually dandruff though, cause I got sunburned on my head since Ive been cutting my hair really short lately, so I think it may just be skin peeling. Hopefully thats it, I don't want dandruff. Link to post Share on other sites
kennyg1966 0 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 fuckem all Link to post Share on other sites
fatman 1 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 I just recently started getting dandruff. I don't think its actually dandruff though, cause I got sunburned on my head since Ive been cutting my hair really short lately, so I think it may just be skin peeling. Hopefully thats it, I don't want dandruff.I would suggest you go out and buy some head and shoulders just to be on the safe side. 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