It seems that every year around
World Series time, there is ample debate as to the significance of the main event, as well as what, if any, changes should be made to the event. I've never been one to shy away from sharing my opinion, so in this column, I'm going to give you my personal take on several changes I've heard people suggest.
I guess the real underlying question is this: What is best for poker's future in regard to the repeated appearance of anonymous players at final tables of poker's most "prestigious" event. Every year,
ESPN tries to tell a story with the main event, one that it thinks will be exciting for the viewing audience and will garner the best ratings. From
ESPN's perspective, I imagine that it would be easier to sell the game as one of skill if the "name players" were better represented in the end when the big bucks are at stake. Obviously, the sheer volume of players is the main reason why final tables generally are filled with less-known players, but there are other factors that make it less likely that
ESPN will get what it's looking for from a ratings perspective.
1. Raise the buy-in: I don't care all that much for this suggestion, but can totally understand why many poker players believe it's time to kick it up! The main event is now tied for the fourth-largest event at the
World Series of Poker, trumped by the $50,000 H.O.R.S.E., the $5,000 no-limit deuce-to-seven single-draw lowball (based on average buy-in and rebuys per player), and the $5,000 pot-limit Omaha (with rebuys) events, and tied with the $10,000 pot-limit Omaha event. That doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Also, $10,000 in 1970 represented a huge buy-in event, but by today's standards, it's just another tournament. In fact, the
World Poker Tour boasts two well-attended events at Bellagio with bigger buy-ins than that (the $25,000
WPT Championship and the $15,000 buy-in December event). In fact, in both Europe and Australia, there are events with bigger buy-ins than $10,000.
Raising the buy-in would mean starting with more chips, which should give players more time to fade bad luck early.
2. Slow it down: This year, the
World Series of Poker changed the structures of the events, starting players off with double the amount of chips. While many in the poker world were excited about this, my question was, what did that do to the structure of the event? Determining how much play an event gives you has nothing to do with the amount of chips you start with; instead, it has everything to do with where the blinds start and how rapidly they escalate. I was shocked to hear so many seemingly knowledgeable poker players totally fooled by this ploy, saying things like, "Oh, it's great! Starting with $20,000 gives us so much more play." Well, that would be true if the structure hadn't exactly doubled at every level. It's essentially exactly the same, and, in my opinion, it's too fast early on. This is probably my biggest pet peeve, but at least I know how to fool the poker world. If I ever hold a tournament, my ad will say something like, "$10,000 buy-in event with $100,000 in starting chips!" Of course, the structure will start at $250-$500 blinds, but apparently few of you will notice!
I think the best way to crown the "world champion" is to add more play, especially in the early levels. In fact, the typical
WPT event has more play than the
WSOP main event. Starting at $50-$100, $100-$200, and then $200-$400 with $20,000 in chips means that players who have a bit of bad luck early could be eliminated in the first four hours. That shouldn't be the case. Lengthening the event would make it more likely that you'd see familiar faces at the final table (if that's something that is wanted). I would suggest a day-one structure that looks more like this:
$10,000 in starting chips
$25-$50
$50-$100
$75-$150
$100-$200
$100-$200 ($25 ante)
$150-$300 ($50 ante)
3. Change the format: Now, this is a pretty radical change that would take some getting used to, but I think it would be a much better test of overall no-limit hold'em skill than the current format provides. I first heard this suggestion from Bob Feduniak, and I thought to myself, "Wow, that would actually make the
WSOP easier to run logistically, and it would force players to play ring-game poker as well as shorthanded poker all the way through." His suggestion was something like this:
Run the event in separate heats. This could be done in several different ways.
If you had, say, 6,000 players, you could run 60 100-player events, going all the way down to one player, just like an extended shootout. The final 10 players in each 100-player group would make the money, and the winner of each event would be one of the final 60 players, at which time all of the participants would start out with an equal amount of chips and play down to a winner from there.
Or, you simply could change the event to a total shootout. The problem with most forms of tournament poker is that they often reward those who "hide" or "squeak into the money" by avoiding confrontation. With a shootout, that becomes impossible, because in order to win, you have to do well in shorthanded situations.
Poker is at a stage now where I think it's very important that we understand in what direction we need to go. It's also important for players to understand that poker's future hinges on it being entertaining television. My biggest worry in regard to the main event is twofold:
1. It is actually used as proof by foolish legislators that poker is not a game of skill.
2. Will people continue to be intrigued by an event that regularly is won by complete unknowns? I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it's a legitimate concern, and one with which I'm sure
ESPN must struggle on a regular basis.
Things change in poker all the time. I think it's time that we start considering making some changes to the most prestigious event in poker before it's too late.
