Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 16:30:42 -0700
From: Jim Geary
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: TIME TO MAKE A CHANGE IN THE WSOP
I dispute this notion:
On 7 May 1998, VC61 wrote:
The money breakdown in the WSOP is beneficial only to Binions. It makes it possible for them to promote the event as a "million dollar" one.
Actually, once the
(number of entries *$10k) > ($1M/.37), [270]
the winner is taking a beat compared to normal prize payout
structures at the WSOP. This has been the case now for some years.
If the "in the money" places went on a straight sliding scale from 1st to nth ... 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, etc ... a lot more people would get their entry fee back and thus a lot more people would enter.
It's gambling, the winners are *supposed* to get the money. A socialistic payout schedule smacks of HarrisonBergeronism.
More importantly, a lot of first-class poker players would not have to leave Las Vegas broke on May 11-14 this year.
If playing (and not winning) a $10k buyin leaves you broke:
1) You're probably not a first-class player, and
2) You should avoid playing. A $10k bankroll is plenty to rebuild from.
I have seen many top-ranked players worrying, on the eve of the final event, how they were going to pay their hotel bills. Some (many?) of them are going home to wives who are wondering who is going to pay the family bills.
Players playing in the (my emphasis here) WORLD SERIES OF POKER, should be financially prepared to not win or they should not play. Personally, I could've ponied up the $10k, but it isn't in the current best interests of my bankroll to do so. I played a couple satellites, one event, took my licking and now go home to grind back a few K. If that would've threatened to put me on the rail, I would not have done so. The WORLD SERIES OF POKER should not be for players on short $ who need a safety net. There are plenty of opportunities to compete without 4-digit entry fees.
Given the fact that the antes and blinds at the final table cause many fine poker players to make moves that they would never make in a ring game, the WSOP does not crown a champion each year ... it crowns a lucky person.
All tournaments create situations that have a correct solution different than ring games. The WSOP is no different. Didn't Huck Seed steal blinds like 17 times in a row? I have a hunch somebody was outplaying somebody.
And if the money difference between 1st place and 2nd place were only 10% there would be no need for any deals.
"Need for deals" is a function of the attributes of the players, I'd say. Word on the street was there was no deal last year, despite the enormous difference between 1st and 2nd. Second place $ of ~$500k is plenty of bankroll for any first-class pro.
Dead money to one side, the working "pros" of our game deserve a more equitable slice of the winners pie than they are now getting.
Play better. If you're not good enough to compete with the world-class players, stay home. There are no shortage of opportunities in America for the "working pro." The WSOP does not have to be one of those opportunities (tho for many it is). The WSOP should be for determining world champions. This same issue comes up every two years among organized Scrabble players in the United States. When asked what the best way to organize the World Championships, players who are one class below the elite surprisingly favor systems that allow nonelite players to compete in the WC's. Poker is a bit more democratic; anyone can play for $10k. If you're not going to win it tho, you shouldn't expect much back.
JG
Last Modified 2/9/00