Wsop May Not Accept Online Qualifiers?

[xxxmen 0]

Shout outs,Been awhile since I've post, but just have been lurking and reading the forums.Since WPT and CPT are hot topics right now. What do you guys think of the possibilites that WSOP 2007 may not accept online qualifiers for there tournaments. Go to www.gambling911.com and read the article. I would like to see an online players view and and a pro player(live players) view on this.I'm sure live players would welcome this idea but would that hurt poker in general. Ever since the ban on american players on most site, this would be an interesting hit on poker tournaments too.

[Socrates 0]

Shout outs,Been awhile since I've post, but just have been lurking and reading the forums.Since WPT and CPT are hot topics right now. What do you guys think of the possibilites that WSOP 2007 may not accept online qualifiers for there tournaments. Go to www.gambling911.com and read the article. I would like to see an online players view and and a pro player(live players) view on this.I'm sure live players would welcome this idea but would that hurt poker in general. Ever since the ban on american players on most site, this would be an interesting hit on poker tournaments too.

This was covered a while back. As with everything, they will find away around it. They can always give you the money or send you a cashier's check made out to the WSOP. They are just not going to let them actually register people as a third party.

[Jordan 1]

This was covered a while back. As with everything, they will find away around it. They can always give you the money or send you a cashier's check made out to the WSOP. They are just not going to let them actually register people as a third party.

Cashiers check would work better than money i think..if ppl just got 10k in cash or whatever, i think a lot would just keep the money then physically going to the cage to buy in with 10k cash in their hand...- Jordan

[GambleToWin 0]

I bet I'm in the minority here but I wish the only way you could enter the WSOP was to put up the $10,000 cash. It would limit the field alot. We would see more pros deep in the event and possibly winning (for a change). I know I would put up the money to play in it anyway. What do you guys think?

[Jordan 1]

I bet I'm in the minority here but I wish the only way you could enter the WSOP was to put up the $10,000 cash. It would limit the field alot. We would see more pros deep in the event and possibly winning (for a change). I know I would put up the money to play in it anyway. What do you guys think?

dead money is good money.- Jordan

[kkcountry 0]

I bet I'm in the minority here but I wish the only way you could enter the WSOP was to put up the $10,000 cash. It would limit the field alot. We would see more pros deep in the event and possibly winning (for a change). I know I would put up the money to play in it anyway. What do you guys think?

jack harris, is that you?

[xxxmen 0]

I'm thinking Pros would like to see a limited field compared to ones with young internet whiz kids from Scandanavia(stereotyping here). I think this would also hurt internet sites since most of there promos are based on the WSOP.I wonder if they would only limit it to the HORSE and 10,000 Buy-In events only.

[DmsTips 0]

I bet I'm in the minority here but I wish the only way you could enter the WSOP was to put up the $10,000 cash. It would limit the field alot. We would see more pros deep in the event and possibly winning (for a change). I know I would put up the money to play in it anyway. What do you guys think?

somewhat agreed. I wish a few more pros had a shot to go really deep to make it for more interesting tv. I can also see people wanting as much dead money online qualifys as possible though.

[blacktie31 0]

Phil Gordan was on Rounders the Poker Show today(podcast) and talked about it. He was saying that they will be using intermediaries to handle the money exchange. Harras just doesn't want to get caught up in direct connection with the online sites.

[SpiderGuard 0]

somewhat agreed. I wish a few more pros had a shot to go really deep to make it for more interesting tv. I can also see people wanting as much dead money online qualifys as possible though.

It's a balancing act, with an optimal amount of dead money that gives pro X a chance to get in the money but still enough dead money that making the money means something. While a bunch of dead money might be long-term EV, when you approach 10,000 entrants in to the tourney the long-term is too long for most people.

[jburn812 0]

As for ponying up the 10 g, there are still plenty of live tournaments that you can win a seat to the ME through. There are also SNGs before the game where 10 people throw a g in and the winner buys in. I am all for a smaller field. It is a correct statement that dead money is great, but dead money gets lucky i.e. Moneymaker, Raymer (I may be gaining respect for him), and Gold. This is to crown the world champion of poker for the year. Let us give it to a professional who is actually the best in the game. I think the tournament of champions should decide the World Champ.

[PMJackson21 0]

dead money is good money.- Jordan

Exactly. (sorry, I don't do QFT or whatever ;-) )If you don't want to play in a huge field, then don't do it.

As for ponying up the 10 g, there are still plenty of live tournaments that you can win a seat to the ME through. There are also SNGs before the game where 10 people throw a g in and the winner buys in. I am all for a smaller field. It is a correct statement that dead money is great, but dead money gets lucky i.e. Moneymaker, Raymer (I may be gaining respect for him), and Gold. This is to crown the world champion of poker for the year. Let us give it to a professional who is actually the best in the game. I think the tournament of champions should decide the World Champ.

LOL. GG credibility. You think Raymer was 'dead money' when he won the event? If Greg was dead money, then I can name a boat load of 'pros' that had even less of a chance then he did.

[jburn812 0]

A boat load of pros that Raymer was better than... Don't make me laugh

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

LOL. GG credibility. You think Raymer was 'dead money' when he won the event? If Greg was dead money, then I can name a boat load of 'pros' that had even less of a chance then he did.

thanks for addressing that part better than I would've.my response woulda been something along the lines of calling him a name and telling him that being ingorant isn't something to be proud of

A boat load of pros that Raymer was better than... Don't make me laugh

hey, two years ago called, Raymer is a very solid player. Poker wise, not phsyicallyYou don't know what you're talking about.

[PMJackson21 0]

A boat load of pros that Raymer was better than... Don't make me laugh

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm going to make you laugh I guess. Just because you didn't see Greg on the WSOP or WPT prior to winning the ME, doesn't mean he wasn't a good player. Greg had always had a great understanding of deep stack poker and had been around the game for a long time.I know it's hard to believe that someone can be a great player and not be on ESPN, but it's true in this case.

[Dogpatch 2]

I think the HORSE tournament should decide the World Champ.

FYP Not being rude, I just think HORSE kicks ***. And at 50,000 buy in, that could be a hella big pot.

[PMJackson21 0]

thanks for addressing that part better than I would've.my response woulda been something along the lines of calling him a name and telling him that being ingorant isn't something to be proud of

I was tempted to just say 'ignorance is bliss'. :-)Your response obviously would have been much more entertaining. :-)

[grimtaash 0]

It's not like the internet qualifyers are not putting up 10k. They earn the money the same way that any satellite participant does. Why does anyone care if a pro wins the main event anyways. If you wanna watch only pros play, watch the ppt.

[looshle 6]

Anybody who wants to limit the field has obviously not played in any of these events. Poker is a game for EVERYONE so anyone should be allowed to play.Want to see a pro make the final table? Well they're going to have to use their skills to make one and if they never do then maybe they weren't as good a player as you thought they were.A lot of you guys fail to realize that there are more than just like 50 "pros." Pro doesnt mean they were on ESPN before the poker boom. Alot of pros ARE winning and/or doing well at the WSOP, they may just have never been on TV.I can guarantee you that alot of the big name players do not want the fields shrinking at all. Why would you want to eliminate a bunch of horrible players and reduce the field to superstrong players as well as the prize pool??Personally, I hope the ME has about 85,000 people next year so that I have a LOT more equity then I would have last year.

[No_Neck 0]

I was down at foxwoods and raymer was playing 25/50 NL with a TON of money in front of him. He had many many stacks of high society.

[erac22 0]

A boat load of pros that Raymer was better than... Don't make me laugh

Wasn't Raymer killing the 100/200 Omaha H/L game at foxwoods for years before he won the ME? And wasn't he helping Slansky write books? I could be wrong, but I don't think Raymer was dead money.erac

[xxxmen 0]

I agree with Looshle,I find alot of poker players like to talk like they make the money etc. and some people don't understand that there are alot of good players who are not pro. The ones you don't see on tv as much. Poker players that usually talk that they have game are usually the ones that are weak. When you show STRENGTH you are usually WEAK. Does this sound familiar(Book of Tells).I think the internet players are probably stonger than some pros due to the fact they see more hands. They only lack live experience which balances things out for the live players. It begs the question are LIVE players better than online players??

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Anybody who wants to limit the field has obviously not played in any of these events. Poker is a game for EVERYONE so anyone should be allowed to play.Want to see a pro make the final table? Well they're going to have to use their skills to make one and if they never do then maybe they weren't as good a player as you thought they were.A lot of you guys fail to realize that there are more than just like 50 "pros." Pro doesnt mean they were on ESPN before the poker boom. Alot of pros ARE winning and/or doing well at the WSOP, they may just have never been on TV.I can guarantee you that alot of the big name players do not want the fields shrinking at all. Why would you want to eliminate a bunch of horrible players and reduce the field to superstrong players as well as the prize pool??Personally, I hope the ME has about 85,000 people next year so that I have a LOT more equity then I would have last year.

pshhh, whatta you know?It's not like you've final tabled a big tourney and knocked out any "pros" or anyt....um, sounds good, 85k it is

[PMJackson21 0]

Wasn't Raymer killing the 100/200 Omaha H/L game at foxwoods for years before he won the ME? And wasn't he helping Slansky write books? I could be wrong, but I don't think Raymer was dead money.erac

But he wasn't on TV! You are nothing until you show your cards to a hole cam obviously! ;-) Being on TV makes you a pro, and better then everyone else. For example, Evelyn and Clonie are like 1000 times better at tournament poker then Strassa, or even FCP's PrtyPSux, because they are on tv a lot.Old Raymer rgp and 2+2 posts are very educational.

[Scanner313 0]

This is to crown the world champion of poker for the year. Let us give it to a professional who is actually the best in the game.

This makes no sense. Do you honestly believe that 1 tournament can be a deciding factor as to who is the "best in the game"? Look at the PPT. The same guy hasn't won more than a single tourney yet. It's a cumulative performance award, as it should be.

I think the tournament of champions should decide the World Champ.

I agree with you here. However, with all the "dead money" winners of bracelets each year, how does this 1 tourney legitimately decide who is the "best"?1 question still remains... Why is it that a non-pro winning the main event makes it illegitimate? He played that 1 event better than the rest of the field. Just because he's not a "pro" somehow makes that accomplishment mean less?The only true answer is to set criteria for cumulative results over a certain number of tourneys, like Cardplayer uses to rank their POY. that's the simple answer.