Main Event

[QuadsFull 0]

Wondering how many people think the "Main Event" should still be a 8,000 to 10,000 person Hold'em event? I also would like to see what Daniel thinks. Should the real main event be the $50,000 HORSE event? To show who is the champion of the poker world? Don't get me wrong I'm a Hold'em player, and trying to get better at it, but also trying to learn other games like all the hi/lo games and Razz, but shouldn't we look up to a champion that has to play a lot of games and be great at all of them. We could still have the $10,000 Hold'em event but the champion of the poker world should be a all around player, no? Please let me know. Thanks

[ROACHBABY 0]

Dude, I'm so buttered. ummmmm, what?

[James D 0]

I think it should be Holdem, but they should increase the buy-in.It's been $10,000 since 1970 or whenever the first one was... doesn't make sense to me that it hasn't gone up since then.

[finztotheleft 0]

Hi Quads,This has been discussed here many times before. Many here agree that it should be a HORSE event. The general concensus was also for a $50,000 buy in. The dispute over increasing the buy in mostly revolved around the issues of "increase the buy in to limit the field and increase the likelyhood that a real pro will win" vs the "keeping it $10,000 puts more dead money in the pot by the masses for the pros to win and gets more new players into poker with the Moneymaker effect (anyone can win)."

[trippkelly 0]

Hi Quads,This has been discussed here many times before. Many here agree that it should be a HORSE event. The general concensus was also for a $50,000 buy in. The dispute over increasing the buy in mostly revolved around the issues of "increase the buy in to limit the field and increase the likelyhood that a real pro will win" vs the "keeping it $10,000 puts more dead money in the pot by the masses for the pros to win and gets more new players into poker with the Moneymaker effect (anyone can win)."

Yeah... what HE said.

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

Like I said before, a 100k Razz, Omaha 8OB event!

[ScottTK 0]

I don't think it really matters all that much.The $50k HORSE event has more prestige anyway, IMO.It's not like the ME winner is the best player in anyone's mind, it doesn't prove anything.Then again, I know nothing...Royal Hold'em Main Event?

[Fluffdog87 2]

Make it $1 million buy-in rebuy tourney. James Bond could play since he won that $5mil rb for $150 mil.He's a luckbox and dead $! lol donkaments!

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

Make it $1 million buy-in rebuy tourney. James Bond could play since he won that $5mil rb for $150 mil.He's a luckbox and dead $!

Lol new sig.

[HermanKahn 0]

I dont know...HORSE is far more prestigious, but Razz is a stupid game. Dumb*sses don't do well at Omaha, so maybe that's an option. Get rid of the Ladies' Event, it's patronizing.In any event, the buy-in for the Main Event should be 100K, f*ck online qualifiers. Making people ask themselves "how bad do you want it?" would cull the dross and up the prestige factor right there.

[Scanner313 0]

In any event, the buy-in for the Main Event should be 100K, f*ck online qualifiers. Making people ask themselves "how bad do you want it?" would cull the dross and up the prestige factor right there.

So making it so that only the rich can play in the main event is going to somehow better determine who the best player in the world is? You'll still have guys like Jerry Buss playing in it, because HE can afford it. How is the buy-in amount relative to who the best player in the world is?With the amount of luck involved in poker, the "best" will probably only win 5% of the time anyway. The ME is just another tournament where they slap the title "World Champion" onto it. It means nothing and everyone knows it. If a pro won the title this year would it then again have this prestige that apparently no amatuer deserves?It doesn't matter anyway, as all the pros consider the $50k HORSE event to be the unofficial "Championship" event, anyway.

[psujohn 0]

Dude, I'm so buttered. ummmmm, what?

Can you please explain exactly what's going on in your avatar.The winner of the ME is the winner of the ME. Thinking that any one tournament will determine who is the best poker player that year is pretty dumb. I think the various POY competitions come closer to determining the best tournament player of the year. If you want to determine the best all around poker player I'd judge it simply on $$$$ won. Since game selection is part of playing poker I wouldn't care if the guy made 15 brazillion dollar playing 1/2 NL or by playing in the 4k/8K mixed game.And as for the winner of the 50K HORSE being the real champion - ask a table full of 1/2 NL players at your local B&M who the winner of the ME is and you'll get Jamie Gold from 8 of them. Ask them who the winner of the 50K HORSE is and you'll get "What's HORSE?" from 8 of them.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I dont know...HORSE is far more prestigious, but Razz is a stupid game. Dumb*sses don't do well at Omaha, so maybe that's an option. Get rid of the Ladies' Event, it's patronizing.In any event, the buy-in for the Main Event should be 100K, f*ck online qualifiers. Making people ask themselves "how bad do you want it?" would cull the dross and up the prestige factor right there.

You seem quite angry, and not all that bright.Good luck with that.

[HermanKahn 0]

So making it so that only the rich can play in the main event is going to somehow better determine who the best player in the world is? You'll still have guys like Jerry Buss playing in it, because HE can afford it. How is the buy-in amount relative to who the best player in the world is?

No, it would limit it to rich people and those who are really, really driven and motivated to go out and do whatever it takes to round up the buy-in. Good players who've proven themselves and paid their dues can always find backers, and if you're poor but willing to work hard and sacrifice something (sell the house, whatever) you deserve to be there. Maybe drastically upping the buy-in isn't the answer, but I think there are far too many people playing the ME who don't take it seriously enough.

[OVERKILL 0]

My take: They should increse the buy in to 50K, or maybe 25K.They could also LIMIT the amount of online players to 500/ 1000 or something.Last year I believe more than half the people qualified online, by doing that it takes ALOT of the prestige away fom the main event. Just knowing soooo many people never spent more than $100 to play in what is supposed to be the poker CHAMPIONSHIP.I am actually torn on making it the 50K horse event. Because as we know the "Cadillac" of poker is NO LIMIT hold em.In the horse event all the games are limited to what can be bet on each hand. Takes the teeth crunching shove of your whole stack out of play.

[psujohn 0]

The main event is what it is. It's prestige comes from that fact that it is the main event. It's also the largest event of its kind. As long as NL HE is the most popular game around I say the main event needs to be NL HE. I also think it needs to be open to all comers. Raising the buy-in I don't care either way. I can certainly see the argument for adjusting the buy-in for inflation. And certainly a 25K buy-in isn't unheard of. I think you'd get about half the field if the buy-in were 25K which would still likely yield the largest prize pool of the year.Invitational events (PPL) or events which you need to qualify to play (PPT) are fine and if the take off they'd have a legitimate claim to crowning the "champion" but I don't think changing the ME in any of these ways would "improve" it for anyone.

[moto67e 0]

I would think a SERIES of tournaments would be the best way to even out the luck factor. If there was 3 events at 10,000 , then that would tell you who the best overall champion was. So are you guys saying that Jamie Gold isn't the best player in the world?

[Jdr999 0]

My take: They should increse the buy in to 50K, or maybe 25K.They could also LIMIT the amount of online players to 500/ 1000 or something.Last year I believe more than half the people qualified online, by doing that it takes ALOT of the prestige away fom the main event. Just knowing soooo many people never spent more than $100 to play in what is supposed to be the poker CHAMPIONSHIP.

All of this is a complete joke.The reason famous poker players like Phil Ivey, Daniel Negreanu and others are able to capitalize on their fame is because of Chris Moneymaker and his story of winning the 2003 WSOP. Without his story, I believe that poker would not be as popular as it is today. Also, it would be impossible, and stupid, to limit the amount of online qualifiers to the event, as they have contributed to the massive growth in the last 3 years of entries. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Lastly, I do not believe that the high number of online players has hurt the prestige of the WSOP Championship. While it requires much more luck (more players=more luck), why would anyone be less proud if they won the Main Event this year than 4 or 5 years ago?

[1969_F85 0]

"The best player in the world"... come on. There is no real way of determining that. There are players that can rack up huge money amounts by playing in just one event and being a luckbox (Jamie Gold) so his yearly earnings would be skewed. Then there are players that would win more tournaments in a year, but not win 12 mil and have more bracelets (Phil Mellmouth), and then there are people that would be lucky as hell and hit a 5 on the river after putting all of his money in as a 95% dog (Stan Weiss) and winning the tournament. People say that Phil Ivey is the greatest cash game player in the world, but how do we know?Opinions are like a$holes, everyone has one and most of them stink. IMO. HAHAI like the idea of a series of games, Horse, Hold 'Em, cash games, tournaments, etc... to determine the greatest player, but that would be nearly impossible to come up with.

[HermanKahn 0]

While it requires much more luck (more players=more luck), why would anyone be less proud if they won the Main Event this year than 4 or 5 years ago?

Because I'd rather legitimately prove I have skills instead of showing I merely happened to get lucky. Outwitting the best players in the world means more to me than taking dead money from a bunch of suckers.Another consideration: if someone like Doyle or Johnny wins this year, everyone is going to be delighted for him and hail him as the best ever. If someone who hasn't proven himself wins, no matter how good he is, all the other two-bit jealous nobodies will say "anyone could have done it".

[akoff 0]

My take: They should increse the buy in to 50K, or maybe 25K.They could also LIMIT the amount of online players to 500/ 1000 or something.Last year I believe more than half the people qualified online, by doing that it takes ALOT of the prestige away fom the main event. Just knowing soooo many people never spent more than $100 to play in what is supposed to be the poker CHAMPIONSHIP.Changing it 25k or 50k will only have more people trying to SAT. in...

[showstopper24 0]

its just tradition. horse obviously takes more skill and should be considered the main event, but the 10k holdem is becuase of its history, and its popularity.the main event is normally the biggest thing. and 8000 people is more than 200

[showstopper24 0]

double post

[ScottTK 0]

Because I'd rather legitimately prove I have skills instead of showing I merely happened to get lucky.

Poker [let alone a single tournament, whatever the format may be] is not about proving anything. At least not oficially, by winning a bracelet with that title.

[psujohn 0]

Because I'd rather legitimately prove I have skills instead of showing I merely happened to get lucky. Outwitting the best players in the world means more to me than taking dead money from a bunch of suckers.

So what's the exact number of participants where it stops being skill and starts being luck? Should it be 100? Maybe a 1 table SNG?Anyone who says that someone can win a 2000, 5000, 7000 person MTT without skill is deluding themselves. Just as anyone who says someone can win a 2000, 1000, 500, 100 person MTT without luck is deluding themselves. If you asked every top pro "Would you rather have 7000 donkey plus 500 good players in the ME or would you rather have just 500 good players" they'd all say they'd rather have the big field. If you asked them "Would you have a better chance of winning against 7000 donkeys plus 500 good player or against 500 good players" they'd all say that they have a better chance of winning against the small field. But their chance of making money against the big field is much improved over the small. And let's not forget that in poker making the mobney is the ultimate goal.