A Level Playing Field

Tournament poker has grown substantially and been accepted nationwide since the debut of the World Poker Tour. Protecting the integrity of the game is vital to continuing that growth and acceptance.

Everyone who enters a tournament should have an equal opportunity to win. As it is, players put up a buy-in and get the same amount of starting chips, but equality sometimes takes a fork in the road from there. To keep the playing field as level as possible, I suggest doing away with some things that are fairly common in tournaments today. They include rebuy tournaments, headsets, sunglasses, and vested interests in players, which might affect one's play.

My thoughts regarding rebuy tournaments pertain to larger buy-in tournaments (not daily events in local casinos). The exception here is supersatellites, in which it's in everyone's interest to offer as many seats as possible for championship events. Honestly, I've never understood why any casino would want rebuys in larger buy-in tournaments. It doesn't make money on the rebuys, it takes longer to run the tournament, it takes more staffing, it prevents players from getting into cash games, and it depletes the money of the player base.

Rebuy tournaments certainly don't give everyone an equal opportunity to win. Some players cannot afford to rebuy. Those who do not rebuy may be getting a better price for their money, but they do not have an equal opportunity to win.

The most common rebuy tournaments are pot-limit Omaha tournaments. Some players like them because of the nature of the game (it's easy to go broke quickly), but most who like rebuys just want a larger prize pool. Those who can afford unlimited rebuys generally play much faster early in the tournament. This gives them an opportunity to accumulate chips and provides them a big edge in winning the tournament over those who don't rebuy. (Play changes dramatically in Omaha tournaments once the rebuy period is over.) As a compromise to eliminating rebuys in pot-limit Omaha tournaments altogether, my suggestion is to allow a maximum of one rebuy and/or add-on per player.

To further achieve equality, I propose that it's time we ban headsets and sunglasses from tournaments. This suggestion will not be popular with many players. They claim music relaxes them and sunglasses give them an edge. (I rest my case.) I have two concerns with headsets: (1) They slow down the game. Doesn't it irritate you when a player listening to music doesn't hear someone say, "Raise," then takes his headset off and asks who raised? (2) A player wearing a headset could convey a perception to spectators and TV viewers that rather than listening to music, the player may be listening to a friend on the rail "sending someone over," meaning he's telling the player via walkie-talkie what an opponent has in his hand. To the best of my knowledge this has never happened, but it's an issue of perception.

Players wear sunglasses to prevent opponents from looking into their eyes. They can also look out of the corners of their eyes and watch other players without them knowing it. Of course, players who like headsets and sunglasses claim that it's equal for everyone because anyone can listen to music and/or wear sunglasses. I contend they are bad for the game. (To those who are getting endorsement money from sunglass companies, I would say two things: "Congratulations," and "Put them on top of your head or hang them around your neck.")

Shouldn't you have the right to look into the eyes of an opponent or see if he's looking at you? Isn't that a big part of the game? If you allow sunglasses, where do you draw the line? Would you allow players to wear motorcycle helmets or Halloween masks – or paper bags over their heads? How would you vote on the following question? "Should players be allowed to hide their eyes or their faces?" I vote no.

Another concern that's been surfacing lately when it comes to a level playing field in tournaments is people having a substantial vested interest in others who are playing in the same event. It's not in the best interest of two guys who have traded a large percentage with each other or someone staking a player to bust him out of a tournament.

How would you like a tournament to come down to you and two other players if those two players had traded 50 percent with each other, or one was staking the other? It certainly wouldn't be in their financial best interest to play a pot against each other (unless it was to reinforce one guy's chip stack).

This is a tough issue. A number of players need to be staked in order to play. In addition, it's not really possible to know for certain if someone is staking someone else. One suggestion I like is that a rule be put into place for championship events as follows: No player can have more than a 10 percent share of any other player in the same tournament. Those looking to get staked would have to find a consortium of stake horses or someone not playing in the event to stake them. Violators could be barred from future events. To help ensure enforcement, players would have to sign for all of their winnings (unless they disclosed their minority shareholders prior to the start of the tournament).

To continue the growth, prestige, and integrity of tournament poker, players need to be provided as level a playing field as possible. Let's do it.

Take care.

Mike Sexton is the host of PartyPoker.com and a commentator on the World Poker Tour (which can be seen every Wednesday on the Travel Channel).