The WPT Bellagio has now officially become a PAPT event

100-200 (25)
200-400 (25) Now let’s look at this laughable start. The ante in the 200-400 is 50 in pretty much any event you are going to play on the WPT, but they decided to randomly just chop it in half! Not only that, we have the absolutely useless 50-100 level instead of a level that makes just a ton more sense, the 150-300 with a 25 ante. If you are going to start with 60,000 in chips, and you want level 4 to be the 200-400 level, this is better: 100-200
100-200 (25)
150-300 (25)
200-400 (50) I would bet my left testicle that if you polled a panel of rationale people, no one would think Jack’s blind jumps are better. I think the biggest flaw made with the structure is ante size across the board. It’s another foolish gimmick, falsely trying to sell the idea of “more play,” when in fact, the way you add more play to an event, is by adding levels NOT lowering the ante by 50%. That just makes for a less interesting game of NLH. They’ve totally lost it. If they want to add play, the way to do that is by adding in the 2500-5000, 25,000-50,000 levels back into the mix. The current structure sees 50% jumps throughout the tournament because of the omission of those levels. Don’t let yourselves be fooled by this absurd gimmick of “more chips means more play” because it is a flat out LIE! Matt Savage actually wrote a column not too long ago that I was in complete agreement with in relation to the new phenomenon of “deep stacked tournaments.” Don’t be a sucker, and think about it. You get TOO much play early, but you only get that because levels are being omitted from the later stages of the event. I love Jack McLelland and think he is a great guy. Having said that, these new structure tweaks are just plain garbage and I’m genuinely shocked by the logic. END RANT ************************************************************************** Some people took exception to me posting stats that come from the WPT site are there in plain site for all to see. I just did the work of compiling the list of facts with no opinions as to what this says about “who is good, and who sucks.” In fact, if you look at the bottom 10, you see a guy like Matt Glantz who I’ve played with and know he is a winning player in tournament poker. Him being in the bottom 10 simply shows how variance in tournament poker can effect one’s results, therefore you have to be sufficiently bankrolled in order to stay afloat on the WPT.
I posted 176 players. There is going to be a bottom 10! If I posted 132 players, then player 135 would be in the bottom 10 based on past results. This does NOT mean they suck. Some of them very well may suck, but their previous results don’t tell the story either way, much like Carlos Mortensen’s ROI of $107k per tournament doesn’t mean that he is the BEST WPT player, it just means that he has gotten the best return on his investment over the years. It’s just stats people, chillax! ************************************************************************** Last night, after busting out with JJ versus 66 all in pre-flop in a decent sized pot, I decided to head into Bobby’s room to play a little poker. I hadn’t played in quite a while, was bored, and felt like playing. I’m glad I did, it was a lot of fun! I played till the wee hours of the morning and had a few really nice glasses of wine with the guys. I enjoyed it so much, I’m going to head back in there tonight to play again. The game was $1500-$3000 HORSE, 2-7 triple draw, and High-Low Regular. I ended up playing pretty well and won a little over a bean in the game. Probably won’t be doing any drinking tonight, but I’m going to probably going to start a game with Eli. Eli put such a sick bluff on me in a limit hold’em hand last night that I felt compelled to punch him in the stomach. And I did. If he bluffs me like that ever again we are going to just have to drop the gloves and fight. Big deal, Israeli soldier, whatever, meh. I’m not scared, lol… ok, maybe I’m a bit scared 🙂