Sunday, July 23, 2006
Who is the REAL poker champion?
With the 2006 World Series of Poker Main Event taking place in just five days, there have been some rumblings in the poker community that the winner of the Main Event should no longer be considered the true World Champion of poker. The reasoning is simple: The champion won a No-Limit hold 'em poker event. There are so many variations of poker, like Stud, Omaha and Razz, NL seems to take precedence over all of them.I read an article by poker pro Daniel Negreanu who complained about the popularity of NL taking precedence over everything else. He noted 9 of the 10 players at last year's final table were amateurs. He says luck more than skill, because of the thousands of entrants that sign-up to play, plays more of a role than it should. As a result, not as many professionals as Negreanu sees fit do well at the Main Event.
A new World Series event, with a huge buy-in of $50,000, was created at the urging of Negreanu. It's called H.O.R.S.E. (for Hold em, Omaha, Razz, Stud and Stud eight or better) which allows participants to switch between the different poker games cited. And with that astronomical buy-in, it also ensures not too many amateurs get to play.
While I have no problems with this H.O.R.S.E. event taking place, I think Daniel Negreanu entirely misses the reason why poker has exploded in popularity. The luck factor allows for everyday joes like me and you to play with these pros, and even have a chance to win while you're at it. It is also true when Negreanu mentions everything revolves around NL hold em, but really it's not the average players fault that's the case. Most online poker sites offer NL and nothing else. When some do offer variations of poker games, most of them take forever to sign up for because most people don't know how to play and thus there aren't as many players available. And all the TV episodes shown by ESPN and other networks are 95% of the time NL hold em. And when his fellow pros write a book about poker, 9 times out of 10 it's on hold em. Is it our fault that's the case?
Negreanu also mentions that $10,000 buy-in for the Main Event championship "isn't what is used to be", implying $10,000 isn't a high enough entry fee to play. Well, for me and EVERYONE ELSE that isn't a millionaire, that's still huge coin. Although since he set a record for a re-buy tournament last year with 27 re-buys @ $1,000 a pop, maybe to him it's not big enough stakes.
My point is although these professional players may have their own standards as to who the best poker player in the world is, they have to be careful not to shut out the everyday players who love playing the game. And while it's true amateurs usually rule the final table at the Main Event, pros are then born from being at that table. The 2005 WSOP winner Joe Hachem has been a consistent winner ever since taking the coveted bracelet. The pros' book deals, endorsements, websites...all that money they have made from these perks have been fueled by our love of poker. So while their may be some downsides to the poker boom, the positives without question outweigh the negatives.
# posted by SBP : 2:30 PM
Comments:
<< Home
The greatest thing about Poker, NL Hold'em or otherwise is the game itself. The strategy, the balls, the adrenaline and all that the game has to offer. The chance for a nobody who hasn't paid a single due in the poker world to sit at the games single most biggest event in the world is NOT a good thing for either contender at the table. In pro sport - dues must be paid and spots in world series finals must be earned. Yes luck has a lot to do with professional poker, but when the playing feild is so massive due to on-line qualifications, luck supercedes any skill the pros can bring to the game. So I agree 49,999% with Daniel. Only I think he's missed the boat on the solution to the problem. WSOP entrants should have to qualify in person, at the Horseshoe or other designated venue. No online qualifiers at all! People can build bankrolls online if they want to, perhaps qualify for a qualifier, but never qualify directly into the big event. No dollar limit buy-in is going to prevent amateur schmucks from getting involved. Maybe many like me and Ben and most of the people we play with, but there are plenty of rich potsers who can buy their way in every year and stink up the field with bare-assed luck. Why do you think one of us didn't kick Italy's winning goal at World Cup this year? Surely one of us would have been capable? Because we didn't make the team - there is no online qualifying for this team despite the luck factor in their win. Pay your dues WSOP wannabes. Just playing in the tourney should be an honour let alone winning it. Of course there's the whole argument of "well the event was only conceived in the first place to attract suckers so we can take their money and develop side games where the real action occurs. Well that's fine and well and it was working exactly as such until the online world swam in and drowned all that good dusty desert poker was meant to be with soloon doors swinging behind you when you walked in, not blinking green and yellow lights of your modem flashing in the dark by your pile of empty beer cans and pizza boxes.
# posted by 
: 12:02 PM, July 24, 2006
: 12:02 PM, July 24, 2006
Wow, I can't believe someone other than me wrote that.
And, while I agree with the idea of "qualifying in person", in practice that'd just add to the already bloated timelines for the main event. I mean, effectivly, the first two days of the tournament is doing exactly that. It's already paring down the huge field towards an eventual final table.
I think they would do better with a maximum number of entries and distribute those numbers to both in-person and online qualifiers. Let them have super-satellites to compete for the designated number of seats and go from there. Those satellites can be held throughout the year which would keep awareness more sustainable, and the scarcity of seats might even increase interest in the event.
The WSOP is a victim of it's own success, leading to things like huge lineups for washrooms in the first few days of the event, to having to move the event to a larger venue to accomodate the numbers...
I guess they have to decide between continuing to invite the massive numbers of entrants (which equals more money and buzz) and keeping a realistic tournament format that rewards those who play well for a prolonged period of time.
Why don't they let all 30 teams in the NHL compete for the Stanley Cup? Because it dilutes the field and makes it less of an event that rewards a history of good play.
The limits may feel like they're cutting out a part of their audience, but once they reach critical mass (and frankly, I think we're already there) they'll have to do something that continues to make the premier events special enough to sustain interest.
Post a Comment
And, while I agree with the idea of "qualifying in person", in practice that'd just add to the already bloated timelines for the main event. I mean, effectivly, the first two days of the tournament is doing exactly that. It's already paring down the huge field towards an eventual final table.
I think they would do better with a maximum number of entries and distribute those numbers to both in-person and online qualifiers. Let them have super-satellites to compete for the designated number of seats and go from there. Those satellites can be held throughout the year which would keep awareness more sustainable, and the scarcity of seats might even increase interest in the event.
The WSOP is a victim of it's own success, leading to things like huge lineups for washrooms in the first few days of the event, to having to move the event to a larger venue to accomodate the numbers...
I guess they have to decide between continuing to invite the massive numbers of entrants (which equals more money and buzz) and keeping a realistic tournament format that rewards those who play well for a prolonged period of time.
Why don't they let all 30 teams in the NHL compete for the Stanley Cup? Because it dilutes the field and makes it less of an event that rewards a history of good play.
The limits may feel like they're cutting out a part of their audience, but once they reach critical mass (and frankly, I think we're already there) they'll have to do something that continues to make the premier events special enough to sustain interest.
# posted by : 10:21 AM, July 25, 2006
: 10:21 AM, July 25, 2006Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
