Change Can Be Good

With the increasing popularity of poker comes talk of things that need to be changed. One of the most popular topics of discussion has been the World Series of Poker and the buy-in for the main event. Many people think that because of the increased number of players, combined with inflation, the buy-in should be raised.

The World Series of Poker started many years ago as a small get-together of the best poker players in the world. Even back then it didn't mean that the person who won that tournament was the best in the world, but there was no other event that really brought the top players together. Thus, the idea that this person would be crowned the greatest was OK, and accepted as such even if it wasn't totally accurate.

Up until the late '90s, the WSOP was not only the biggest poker tournament of the year, it was really the only poker tournament of the year. Sure, there were other tournaments, but none with buy-ins as high and prestige as great. The WSOP was "it," and what every poker player lived for. Because the WSOP had no com-petition and had established itself as the biggest tournament of the year, the loosely held assumption that the winner of the main event was the world champion continued to hold.

Today, the World Series of Poker has more competition than ever. Not only are there several other $10,000 buy-in events each year, there are a few tournaments with buy-ins that exceed $10,000. Because the WSOP has always been held in higher regard than any other tournament, there is now an assumption that it must play catch-up and do something to outshine its closer competitors.

Should the buy-in be increased to $25,000 or $50,000? The idea is that increasing the buy-in would weed out the everyday amateur player and thin the field to most of the best players. By doing this, we would get back to a select field that would produce the world champion. As it was in the beginning, this champion wouldn't necessarily be the "best," but the result would be that the winner would more than likely at least be someone who is recognized or could realistically be called the world champion.

Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to change the WSOP main event buy-in. What has happened with this event is that it has become a totally different tournament than it was years ago. It is no longer a small gathering of the best players. It is now the biggest and best tournament in the world. In 2004, 2,576 players paid $10,000 to compete for more than $25 million in prize money. The best poker players in the world were playing alongside the most amateur of players. This event has transformed itself from its humble beginnings into a media event that is one of a kind.

The main event no longer crowns the best poker player in the world. Instead, it now crowns a champion of one tournament, albeit the most celebrated tournament in poker. No one believes that Greg Raymer is the best poker player in the world, not even Greg. If you were to ask him who is the best player alive, I am pretty sure he wouldn't include himself in his own top 10. Greg is a great player and deserved to win the main event, but even he will agree that he was the best player in that tournament, but not the best player in the world.

Change is a good thing, and with the growth of major tournaments, there are things that need to be changed. When it comes to the main event of the World Series of Poker, the change that needs to be made is in people's minds. Forget about the world champion title and the professional player intimacy upon which the tournament was built. There will be other invitational or higher buy-in tournaments that will bring together what are considered the best of the best.

The WSOP main event is a one-of-a-kind event. It awards more prize money than any sporting event, it provides more fame for the winner than any other poker tournament, and it is the most exciting event of the year for every poker player. Why would anyone want to mess with that?