Issues of Concern

The poker world seems to be flourishing quite well these days, and that is a good thing. But, all is not hunky-dory in the tournament world, as there are issues of concern for everyone: players, those who work in the industry, those who produce poker TV shows, networks that air the shows, potential sponsors of those shows, and so on. Here are a few issues of concern:



1. Poker's Great White Shark – Ken Adams (CBSNews.com) wrote an intriguing story with this title a few months back, concerning the integrity of tournament poker. In it, referring to the movie Jaws, he said, "Remember when the great white shark ate its first victim, how the Mayor of Amityville [actually, Amity Island] hushed it up for fear of hurting the tourism business on which the town's economic prosperity depended?" He suggested that the leaders of the poker world had better be concerned about the risk of scandal posed by undisclosed partnerships among competing players. Adams said, " … a major public scandal is inevitable. With tournament prize pools growing to tens of millions of dollars it is not a question of whether, but when." He also stated, "The future health of tournament poker will be a lot better off if the risk of collusion is addressed openly and sensibly before a scandal erupts."



It should be obvious to all that no matter how honorable the intentions of some of those who stake players or exchange a percentage of another player who's playing in the same tournament might be, there are those who may be less scrupulous and are deliberately trying to get an edge. Either way, the perception will always be that anyone with a financial interest in another player may or may not play the same against him as he would against anyone else.



Should it be against the rules for players to "invest" in each other by swapping percentages or stake players who are playing in the same event? If so, how would such a rule be enforced?



Casey Kastle, the guy who led the way to get smoking banned in tournaments (the single greatest thing that has ever happened to tournament poker), is now campaigning to eliminate staking and swapping pieces with other players. He thinks it's a form of cheating, and that those players who put themselves into tournaments and have no shares of others are at a disadvantage. He thinks it's "humanly impossible" to play the same way that you might otherwise if you have a financial interest in another. He agrees with Adams' statement: "They need to learn the lesson that the Mayor of Amityville [Amity Island] learned the hard way. Before the conflict of interest beast rises up from the deep and takes a lethal bite out of public support for tournament poker, they [industry leaders] should take preventive action."



2. Dealmaking in Tournaments Basically, many players like to make deals at the end of a tournament. Others who don't like to make deals shouldn't be put in a position of being the "bad guy" who refuses to make a deal. And, certainly, TV people don't want any deals made (in fact, the World Poker Tour doesn't allow them). They believe a no-deal policy makes for better play, more excitement, and much better drama for television. It also avoids the risk of losing potential sponsors who don't want to be involved with events dampened by dealmaking.



Players realize that television enhances the number of entrants in tournaments. However, if nothing is being added to the prize pool, many believe that it's the players' money and they should be able to do with it what they want. I'm from the old school and agree with that. I do believe, however, that players shouldn't be able to deal for all the money if an event is televised. As a compromise, why not allow deals for some percentage of the remaining prize money, but not all of it?



Let's suppose that first place in a tournament is $1 million and second place is $500,000. Many players don't want to flip a coin for half a million bucks. If nothing was added to the prize pool, in my opinion, it would be hard to tell players that they couldn't save at least $200,000 each of that money and play for the remaining $100,000 and the title. Players are still going to be trying their best to win, and the $200,000 save would pay their expenses on tour for a year! Of course, this issue could be resolved very simply by organizers or TV people adding some money to prize pools. Once a substantial amount of money is added to the prize pool, believe me, you won't have any players complaining about a no-deal policy.



3. Final-Table Structures in TV Tournaments This is a hotly discussed topic among players right now. The vast majority believe that you play for four days in a big tournament and the conclusion results in a crapshoot (because the blinds and antes are increased every 30 minutes after several hours of play in a WPT event). Players say, "Give us more time to play at the final table." Some have suggested never increasing the blinds to more than $20,000$40,000 (most tournaments end at the $100,000$200,000 blinds level). This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but players need to recognize the problems that go along with this.



Most WPT final tables end in five to six hours (some have taken eight hours). The first problem with lengthening a final table is production costs. It takes a large crew to put on a WPT final table. They are there setting up hours before a final table commences, as well as breaking down the set long after it ends. Overtime costs are substantial.



Money is not the only concern. Other problems arise if you lengthen final tables. The live audience provides tremendous excitement for WPT shows. How long can you expect an audience to stay? If they did stay for 12-14 hours, how much enthusiasm would they have throughout the show? And remember, no one at the venue can see anyone's cards (meaning, it gets boring to watch). Unless someone has a vested interest in a player, it's very unlikely that he will stay for a long final table. This is television. What would it look like if half the seats were empty at the end of the show?



If play at the final table were lengthened, it would also create serious problems for the editors. They would have much more material to review and then try to eliminate (more time and money). It's tough now to get everything into a two-hour program. Think how hard it would be to do if the final table took twice as long. Some suggest making two programs out of the final table. Well, the Travel Channel schedules a program every Wednesday night, and I'm sure it wants an ending to every show.



Here's another thought: The longer a tournament lasts, the more likely it is that a top pro player will win. Some pros might think that's great, but in truth, this would not be good for them in the long run. It's good for poker when an amateur wins a big tournament. It enables everyone to think he can also do it, and thus results in more people entering tournaments. We need to embellish this thought: "The beauty of poker is that anyone can win."



Players have to recognize and understand that logistical problems do exist when events are televised. A great player once said to me, "Good players don't bitch about structures, they adapt to them." I really like that.



The world is not perfect, and neither is tournament poker. Addressing issues such as these will make it a better place.

Mike Sexton is the host of PartyPoker.com, a commentator on the World Poker Tour (which can be seen every Wednesday on the Travel Channel), and the author of Shuffle Up and Deal (which was on The New York Times best-seller list and can be purchased at http://www.cardplayer.com/). His e-mail address is [email protected].