WSOP (still the best?)

[Vegas King 0]

The play at the WSOP has become a crap shoot. A bracelet is not what is used to be. There are too many eventsThe buyins are too low. Sorry, but a victory in a $1,000-$1,500 event these days does not derserve a bracelet.The play is horrible. You can hardly put anyone on a hand anymore. Where as this is wonderful in the cash games, it is horrible for someone trying to survive and accumulate chips in a main event. People will eventually get sick of seeing all amateurs at the final tables. Name recognition is very key when events are on TV. The WSOP will soon become a far second to the WPT if things do not change.Here are my suggestions:20 events max2 - Mixed games $10k and $25K2 - 7 cars stud (One high low) $10K each2 - Omaha (One High low and one Pot limit) $10k each2 - Pot Limit Holdem $10k and $25k4 - Limit Holdem $5K, $10K, $15K, $20K8 - No Limit Holdem 2 - $5k, 2 - $10k, $15K, $20K, $25K, and the Main event $50K.Do not have the events overlap themselves. Have each be real 2 day events. The final event can still be 7 days.You would still get big crowds, but they would be much more manageable. The prize funds would be huge, and each event would mean so much more.Another issue I have is with the payouts. $7.4M for first is ridiculous with 6,600 players. First place should be at least 30% and probably more. Do you have to pay 600 spots. Who cares about $15K? I think the Rio is doing a fine job so far, except for the ridiclous lines, but the overall WSOP philosophy needs to change before the event is passed by.

[SapphireTiger 0]

i disagree whole-heartedly on most if not all of your points.I don't know why you would complain about there being too many events...it's not a disadvantage to anyone.A bracelet may mean more than it used to be, as getting through those fields are going to be very difficult.I think because there are so many events, that there WILL be pros at final tables.Although I think it would be great if the events didn't overlap each other...that's a lot of money for the buy-ins...it really sounds as if you'd prefer a WSOP with pros only.

[Diabolical 0]

your wrong!!!! WSOP is doing GREAT!I hear you about the fields, but when you still see so many pros get down to the last 100 out of 2300, it shows that skill and experience still play a factor in these events. What is the ratio of pros vs. newbies?I think i heard yeasterday that it was 1 to 64 entrants.That being said, count how many pros were in the top 100. I think you'll find that the pros are still getting down to the end of these tourneys. And it shows that it is a "crap shoot" for the amatures cause there not even coming close to that ratio at the end of these monster tourneys. There "luck" only goes so far until the "skill" of the pros destroys the 1 to 64 ratio.Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!

[Vegas King 0]

It is not about pros only, it is about prestigue. A $1,000 event should not get a bracelet period. With all the internet play and satillites, the events would fill no matter what the buyins.Who would be the better player?One who beats 1,000 players in a $50,000 event for a bracelet or one who beats 6,600 players in a $10,00 event?6,600 players just brings too much luck into effect. You have to avoid too many bad plays and suckouts to get to the top.A 1,000 players would eliminate much of the nonsense especially at $50KIn the first event of $1,500, players were tossing chips around like they were candy. There was no value in the $$$, and who wants to play for 3 days for a small chance at making over $100K.Just my opinion. I will crush the side games and wait for the next $10K event.

[Pupsta 0]

It is not about pros only, it is about prestigue. A $1,000 event should not get a bracelet period. With all the internet play and satillites, the events would fill no matter what the buyins.Who would be the better player?One who beats 1,000 players in a $50,000 event for a bracelet or one who beats 6,600 players in a $10,00 event?6,600 players just brings too much luck into effect. You have to avoid too many bad plays and suckouts to get to the top.A 1,000 players would eliminate much of the nonsense especially at $50KIn the first event of $1,500, players were tossing chips around like they were candy. There was no value in the $$$, and who wants to play for 3 days for a small chance at making over $100K.Just my opinion. I will crush the side games and wait for the next $10K event.

so what'd your aces get cracked by?

[Vegas King 0]

The ratio is no where near 1 to 64.In event #2 it was maybe 12-1 and the pot limit was maybe 5-1. there are a lot more pros out there than you think. Yes you see some big names out there, but out of the top 100, there is less than 20 in event #2. The final table is refreshing in event #2, but I do not see it staying this way.

[Pupsta 0]

The ratio is no where near 1 to 64.In event #2 it was maybe 12-1 and the pot limit was maybe 5-1. there are a lot more pros out there than you think. Yes you see some big names out there, but out of the top 100, there is less than 20 in event #2. The final table is refreshing in event #2, but I do not see it staying this way.

so you're saying there were 200'ish pros in event #2? if that's the case, how is this a bad thing?

[Diabolical 0]

well, i have to respectfully disagree. I think i heard that ratio on one of the videos on cardplayer. And I think it was DN who said it. I could be wrong cause i watched alot of videos from the WSOP last night. But i know someone said that.

[Vegas King 0]

It is not about pros only, it is about prestigue. A $1,000 event should not get a bracelet period. With all the internet play and satillites, the events would fill no matter what the buyins.Who would be the better player?One who beats 1,000 players in a $50,000 event for a bracelet or one who beats 6,600 players in a $10,00 event?6,600 players just brings too much luck into effect. You have to avoid too many bad plays and suckouts to get to the top.A 1,000 players would eliminate much of the nonsense especially at $50KIn the first event of $1,500, players were tossing chips around like they were candy. There was no value in the $$$, and who wants to play for 3 days for a small chance at making over $100K.Just my opinion. I will crush the side games and wait for the next $10K event.

so what'd your aces get cracked by?

No was not cracked at all. Did not play the first 2 events. I only plan to play 3-5 events. Too much cash in the side games not to stay fresh and rested for them.

[LAPoker 0]

Ah your wrong. A 50K event is not going to draw 1000 players. The WPT Championship only drew 452, and that was a 50K buyin. I for one enjoy seeing new faces at the final table, and to suggest that a five day event is all about luck sounds like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. The main event takes enourmous pacience, skill, and like all tournements quite a bit of luck at the end. Changing the buyin will not effect the fact that you need to get lucky at the end to win it. Oh and the only $1000 buyin event that I have seen is a rebuy event. For the $1500 event if you are able to make it through a field of 2600 players you sure do deserve a bracelet. Does it carry the same weight as the main event hell no.

[Pupsta 0]

well, i have to respectfully disagree. I think i heard that ratio on one of the videos on cardplayer. And I think it was DN who said it. I could be wrong cause i watched alot of videos from the WSOP last night. But i know someone said that.

i think 1 of 64 was a bit low too though...2500 ppl, 1:64 would be 40ish....if i'm not mistaken, there were close to 40 pros just from fulltilt

[monoatomic 0]

Who wants to play 3 days for 100k...um me!! Raise my hand please teacher I could use 100k with only having to risk $1500.As far as your thinking of people not liking the WSOP anymore because they don't see any pro's is utter bullshit. Look at this year. How many people were in the first event? How many people are there going to be in the main event?Yeah...I don't see poker losing any steam anytime soon.The greatest thing is the internet by far. This gives people who normally have no way of buyin/winning a seat into one of these tourneys a chance to. The internet is what is going to keep the WSOP stocked full of players for the next 5 years. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point they raised the buyin to the main event to $25k and added 5-10 more events.The other thing you have to take into consideration is that the casino isn't doing this because they feel they need to keep up with tradition, they are doing it to make some serious money. If they are smart they keep these low money events and that in turn will bring TONS of people to vegas who normally wouldn't go if the buyin was 10k. It not only brings in money to the casino through buyin fees and what not but also brings people into the casino to play other games and hotel fees and blah blah blah.

[Vegas King 0]

Ah your wrong. A 50K event is not going to draw 1000 players. The WPT Championship only drew 452, and that was a 50K buyin. I for one enjoy seeing new faces at the final table, and to suggest that a five day event is all about luck sounds like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. The main event takes enourmous pacience, skill, and like all tournements quite a bit of luck at the end. Changing the buyin will not effect the fact that you need to get lucky at the end to win it. Oh and the only $1000 buyin event that I have seen is a rebuy event. For the $1500 event if you are able to make it through a field of 2600 players you sure do deserve a bracelet. Does it carry the same weight as the main event hell no.

So are you going to tell me it did not take more luck for Raymer, Moneymaker, and Varkoni to win than it did Chan, Hellmuth, and Brunson in the 70's and 80's?

[GTKID 0]

50,000? thats a lot of ****ing money. The wsop does not need to change, people need to adjust, and as pointed out the pros seem to be handling it ok, maybe you aren't? 10,000 is also a tradition, I really doubt its going to go up to 50,000. And since more players make it harder doesn't that add prestige? I bet 6600 players to win! you beat 1,000, mine was much tougher.

[Pupsta 0]

Ah your wrong. A 50K event is not going to draw 1000 players. The WPT Championship only drew 452, and that was a 50K buyin. I for one enjoy seeing new faces at the final table, and to suggest that a five day event is all about luck sounds like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. The main event takes enourmous pacience, skill, and like all tournements quite a bit of luck at the end. Changing the buyin will not effect the fact that you need to get lucky at the end to win it. Oh and the only $1000 buyin event that I have seen is a rebuy event. For the $1500 event if you are able to make it through a field of 2600 players you sure do deserve a bracelet. Does it carry the same weight as the main event hell no.

So are you going to tell me it did not take more luck for Raymer, Moneymaker, and Varkoni to win than it did Chan, Hellmuth, and Brunson in the 70's and 80's?

i think that raymer, moneymaker, and (to a lesser extent) varkoni's wins were more impressive than chan/hellmuth/brunson in the 70s. luck is a factor in every tourney, 100 people or 2600 people. doesn't mean they didn't play exceptionally well and deserve the title of world champions

[jimjoachim 0]

Whoever weins the main event will deserve it.Anyone who can come out on top after playing 10 hours a day for the best part of a week deserves credit, be it an online qualifier or a pro.Side note, there are alot of pros playing this year that arnt recognised because they dont pimp themselves on tv.

[Vegas King 0]

Who wants to play 3 days for 100k...um me!! Raise my hand please teacher I could use 100k with only having to risk $1500.As far as your thinking of people not liking the WSOP anymore because they don't see any pro's is utter censored. Look at this year. How many people were in the first event? How many people are there going to be in the main event?Yeah...I don't see poker losing any steam anytime soon.The greatest thing is the internet by far. This gives people who normally have no way of buyin/winning a seat into one of these tourneys a chance to. The internet is what is going to keep the WSOP stocked full of players for the next 5 years. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point they raised the buyin to the main event to $25k and added 5-10 more events.The other thing you have to take into consideration is that the casino isn't doing this because they feel they need to keep up with tradition, they are doing it to make some serious money. If they are smart they keep these low money events and that in turn will bring TONS of people to vegas who normally wouldn't go if the buyin was 10k. It not only brings in money to the casino through buyin fees and what not but also brings people into the casino to play other games and hotel fees and blah blah blah.

You are very right on the Money Making aspect of this.........especially with Harrah's in control

[LAPoker 0]

By the way I think the fact that you have been seeing some bung whole win a butt load of money is what draws attention to the WSOP. Many claim that Moneymakers win is the reason that poker took off. People all around the world said, hey wait a second I can't shoot a basketball, I can't drive a golf ball, but I can learn how to play poker. Take this away, and poker will go back to the pre poker boom days.

[Blink20 0]

Ah your wrong. A 50K event is not going to draw 1000 players. The WPT Championship only drew 452, and that was a 50K buyin. I for one enjoy seeing new faces at the final table, and to suggest that a five day event is all about luck sounds like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. The main event takes enourmous pacience, skill, and like all tournements quite a bit of luck at the end. Changing the buyin will not effect the fact that you need to get lucky at the end to win it. Oh and the only $1000 buyin event that I have seen is a rebuy event. For the $1500 event if you are able to make it through a field of 2600 players you sure do deserve a bracelet. Does it carry the same weight as the main event hell no.

So are you going to tell me it did not take more luck for Raymer, Moneymaker, and Varkoni to win than it did Chan, Hellmuth, and Brunson in the 70's and 80's?

I remember one of those years hearing that Chan had to win 13 coinflips inorder to win the main event. I have most of the WSOP on dvd, but that's just the final tables, and there are a lot of times even the pros get lucky. Certainly you do have to be more lucky to outlast a bigger field. But there is still a lot of skill in surviving that many days and that many opponents.

[Vegas King 0]

Ah your wrong. A 50K event is not going to draw 1000 players. The WPT Championship only drew 452, and that was a 50K buyin. I for one enjoy seeing new faces at the final table, and to suggest that a five day event is all about luck sounds like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. The main event takes enourmous pacience, skill, and like all tournements quite a bit of luck at the end. Changing the buyin will not effect the fact that you need to get lucky at the end to win it. Oh and the only $1000 buyin event that I have seen is a rebuy event. For the $1500 event if you are able to make it through a field of 2600 players you sure do deserve a bracelet. Does it carry the same weight as the main event hell no.

So are you going to tell me it did not take more luck for Raymer, Moneymaker, and Varkoni to win than it did Chan, Hellmuth, and Brunson in the 70's and 80's?

i think that raymer, moneymaker, and (to a lesser extent) varkoni's wins were more impressive than chan/hellmuth/brunson in the 70s. luck is a factor in every tourney, 100 people or 2600 people. doesn't mean they didn't play exceptionally well and deserve the title of world champions

Anyone who wins the main event has some skill, but if these 6 played 50 main events each, I would put all the money on my 3 guys from the decades past

[LAPoker 0]

Ah your wrong. A 50K event is not going to draw 1000 players. The WPT Championship only drew 452, and that was a 50K buyin. I for one enjoy seeing new faces at the final table, and to suggest that a five day event is all about luck sounds like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. The main event takes enourmous pacience, skill, and like all tournements quite a bit of luck at the end. Changing the buyin will not effect the fact that you need to get lucky at the end to win it. Oh and the only $1000 buyin event that I have seen is a rebuy event. For the $1500 event if you are able to make it through a field of 2600 players you sure do deserve a bracelet. Does it carry the same weight as the main event hell no.

So are you going to tell me it did not take more luck for Raymer, Moneymaker, and Varkoni to win than it did Chan, Hellmuth, and Brunson in the 70's and 80's?

I think that to win any tournement takes luck. If you don't pick up hands when the blinds increase you are screwed. No matter how many chips you have accumulated.

[Diabolical 0]

hey vegasking, I wish you luck today and for your other events. ....................................... I mean, "May the Cards Be With You" Hahahaha. But i think your sounding like some of these pros who cry after they get busted out and blame it on "these crazy,dumbass internet players" who don't know how to fold. These same complaining pros are just venting, but they love the poker boom and all the action it brings. If you talk to them after they "win" an event with many newbies in it, you'll hear them talk in a more gracious tone toward all the new action.

[LAPoker 0]

By the way when i win the main event this year, I will be fine with the prize pool. No need to increase it to 50K for next year.

[mark33f 0]

Yeah there is more luck these days, but honestly look at all the dead money. It is astounding how high the ROI in some of these events are. I don't think the WSOP is perfect now, because there is no balance of events (too much hold'em) and it is kinda of commercialized. But honestly all these bad players are gonna make me and every other good player more money. Think of all the fish that play in side games because of what they see on t.v.?P.S. The WPT Championship was a 25k buy-in, but players started with 50k in chips

[21gambit 0]

you forget, you can always count on harrington making it to the final table