Early World Series of Poker Results Foretell Poker's Future

At the 2003 World Series of Poker, six players, all more or less established stars, won two bracelets each, and final table after final table (especially in the pot-limit and no-limit events) was filled with star players. Everyone agreed that this was the result of what was then a new tournament structure that required a bit more luck in the early going, but through which the blinds and antes increased very slowly at the higher levels. This meant the great players had time to wait for the right moment, and if they could survive the dangerous early rounds, they had terrific chances to cash and/or win.

Although the 2004 WSOP is using essentially the same structure, results through the first dozen events have been quite different. Although you certainly can't say that the winners haven't come from poker royalty, when players as great as Ted Forrest and Chau Giang have won, the winners, as a group, have not been as strong as they were last year, and neither have the final tables.

If the betting structure is the same, and the game hasn't lost any great players, what has made the difference – and is that difference a short-term anomaly or something we can expect to see as part of poker for the foreseeable future?

The answer to the second part of the question posed quite naturally depends a good deal on the answer to the first part, so let's start there. What the heck has happened?

On the most elementary level, it's a pure numbers game. There are more players in almost every event; even a traditionally very tough event like $5,000 no-limit hold'em had almost twice as many entrants as it did the year before. If you increase the number of entrants but don't increase the number of great players, the numbers dictate that a smaller percentage of great players will populate each final table.

Before we abandon the pure numbers, note that they help create a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. People thinking, "To play or not to play, that is the question" will see more hometown heroes winning or making the money, and will think, "Maybe I won't have to beat a final table featuring six bracelet winners to win," and more will show up … which in turn will keep the numbers high.

Another factor increasing the field size and making it tougher for the famous players to win is the WSOP's new, flatter payout structure. Winners are making only 25 percent, not 35 percent, and with the money taken from the traditionally heavily paid first three finishers, Harrah's is paying more players. Roughly 10 percent of each field is getting paid. Last year, when the "Big One" had 839 entrants, 63 players were paid; if 839 enter an event this year (and we've virtually seen that; the opening $2,000 no-limit hold'em event had 834 starters), 81 spots would be paid, not 63.

When it becomes easier to come in the money, more marginal players are willing to take their shot. They might not think themselves capable of winning, but they do think they can make the top 10 percent with a little luck, and they're probably right.

What's more, every time some hometown hero goes back home and tells the guys in his Friday night poker game that he made the money at the World Series, six players in that game who think they are as good or better than the cashing player start making plans to attend future WSOP events, either in 2004 or in 2005.

The numbers game, in other words, seems to argue that events will continue to grow, keeping final tables less star-filled … but there are many considerations beyond the numbers. The new players coming into poker are here because of television exposure and the Internet, and that means they play a different style.

Internet tournament players tend to play more loosely than cardroom tournament players, because if you lose your one-table "sit and go" tournament, another will be starting in a few minutes; you don't have to worry that if you lose your chips quickly, you made a 45-minute drive for nothing. There's a lot more overbetting of pots on the Internet: I regularly see people bet $1,000 into dry (small) pots containing nothing but $45 in blind money. This is a high-risk practice, of course, because if someone wakes up with a big hand behind you, or correctly sniffs out your attempt at bullying, you've lost a lot with minimal upside: The risk-reward ratio isn't good.

Nonetheless, the ever-increasing number of Internet players have "grown up" playing this sort of poker, and they apply a lot of pressure to stars who prefer to play small-pot poker. The Internet poker generation has also grown up watching televised poker, where the constraints of an edited broadcast make it seem like someone moves all in, or at least makes a huge raise, every couple of hands. This contributes to their style, and their style virtually forces the established stars to give up some of their edge. They can give it up by folding too many hands, not wanting to gamble with the "obviously inferior" player … and by yielding too often, they give up much of the edge that their experience and card sense have earned them.

If the great player recognizes that he just can't let the superaggressive New Breed run over him, and adjusts by getting involved in more gambling situations, that means giving up an edge, too. The great players might make lots of verbal "threats" about the dangers of "trying that again," but if they live up to their promise of playing along, they're putting their stacks at risk more often than they want to.

While there are ways to apply damage control, if enough players want to make no-limit a game of luck rather than skill, they can … and this New Breed has no reason to want to play into their more experienced opponents' hands. They're not comfortable making complex post-flop decisions, so they force the issue before the flop and cross their fingers. With the New Breed now firmly entrenched, I believe there is very little question as to which game requires more skill. Pot-limit hold'em is tougher than no-limit, while still allowing for the big bets that enable a player to protect a hand, something not possible in limit poker.

Looking at the total picture, it seems fairly clear that the only way the great players can expect to numerically dominate final tables at major events under today's circumstances is for sponsoring casinos to do something not in their own best interests: narrow the fields by paying fewer players, not more, and by making final-table money even more top heavy than it used to be. That will keep some of the players who are willing to risk their money when they think they have a fair shot at getting into the money out of the tournaments.

Why, though, would casinos want to do this? They want more players at their tournaments, not fewer. They make an entry fee on every tournament player and get more rake from the swelled side games. Don't expect casinos to try to make fields smaller just so the superstars can have a better chance.

Over a longer term, the superstars may have better hopes. The New Breed will gain more experience and probably start feeling a bit more comfortable playing after the flop; they may start realizing that while their approach to the game makes it more likely that final tables will contain many New Breed players, it may make it less likely that they themselves will get there. They'll throttle back a bit, while the Old Guard gains more experience at subtle ways of fighting back against this new wide-open style.

While we may never again get a six double-bracelet winner WSOP like 2003, the cream does eventually rise to the top. The stars will get back to the final tables. Their own skills aside, television wants stars at its final tables, and what television wants, television usually gets. For the nonce, until the New Breed gains experience playing after the flop and the Old Guard learns how to play against the New Breed, expect to see more talented but relatively lesser-known players playing under the bright lights, and don't be surprised if a Big One that is going to contain almost 2,000 players (my guess: 1,839) continues the pattern set the last couple of years with Robert Varkonyi and Chris Moneymaker.

Late tonight, as I watched the limit hold'em field battle its way down to tomorrow's final table, I spotted at one of the six tables still in action the following players: Scotty Nguyen, Diego Cordovez, Mike Matusow, Mark Gregorich (moved in when Chris "Jesus" Ferguson busted out), Erik Seidel, and Daniel Negreanu. There's virtually no chance that the final table of the WSOP Big One this year will feature a collection of players even remotely close in talent to that group. That news, combined with a $3 million first prize, makes entering a trivially easy decision for me … and about 2,000 of my best friends.

Of course, I play Old Guard style, so my excuse for not winning is already fully prepared, in the unlikely event that I need it … because, just like every other member of the Old Guard, I have some ideas about how to deal with these New Breed punks. You just need to be a combination racecar driver and gymnast: shift gears and maintain your balance.

Andrew N.S. Glazer, "The Poker Pundit," is Card Player's tournament editor, and he writes a weekly gambling column for The Detroit Free Press. He is the author of Casino Gambling the Smart Way (Career Press, 1999), and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Poker (Alpha Books, fall 2004). His Internet tournament coverage can be found at FinalTablePoker.com, and he welcomes your questions.