why i think the 2006 wsop ME will not attract a bigger pool

[GrannyMae]

1. the pokerstars factor:

no champ will probably = less seats awarded by them next year

2. the australian factor:

god bless him, but the no-name from the sparsely populated continent will not help draw any extra players except aussies. that amounts to about 10 more players

3. the flat payout factor:

i know that 99% of people disagree with me on this issue, but i hated the $7.5 million for first. all i can say is that i personally will not play the ME next year because of this. i think that other's who feel the same way will be a higher number than most think. there will be less returning players imo.

4. the final table factor:

imo, this will not make for break-out ratings because it was a relative no-name line up.



sorry, had to get this off my chest.

that is all.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a/byebye.gif

[Rekwob]

1. they'll still organise at least as many satelites as they did this year, and theres still a massive core base of players on stars to fill at least as many as this year.

2. there was a more international feel to this years final table, and i think that'll help. and seeing someone like dannenman on there will interest far more americans than raymer imo.

3. i dont think everyone who enters the WSOP sees themselves getting first, and the fact they can come 70th and get $100k is going to appeal to more people than the fact that they can get $20m for being first out of 6000. but thats your opinion on that one.

4. look at last years line up. no more big name players than this year.

i think the WSOP will increase, maybe only slightly, it'll probably sell out if they cap at 6600 again.

[Sponger.]

[ QUOTE ]
all i can say is that i personally will not play the ME next year because of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

How'd you finish in the WSOP this year again? Did you crack the top 5000?

[GrannyMae]

i should state that i absolutely hope you are correct.

just because i don't want to play because of the flat payout does not mean that i don't want to see it be wildly successful. i hope they get 10,000 players.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

4. the final table factor:

imo, this will not make for break-out ratings because it was a relative no-name line up.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was a no-name like up in both 2003 and 2004 with the exception of Harrington (who a few new in 2003 for his championship and everyone new in 2004).

Besides, having several name players at the final table isn't important.

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
all i can say is that i personally will not play the ME next year because of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

How'd you finish in the WSOP this year again? Did you crack the top 5000?

[/ QUOTE ]

hey nutsack, what does that have to do with it??

i am posting an opinion. do i have to be a multi-bracelet winner that lasted LESS time than me to be able to post an opinion?

how did you do btw?

[TheBlueMonster]

agreed....sponger, there is no need to be negative/overly sarcastic in every single post you make to serious questions. Save your finger strength for something more constructive

[Sponger.]

[ QUOTE ]
hey nutsack, what does that have to do with it??

i am posting an opinion. do i have to be a multi-bracelet winner that lasted LESS time than me to be able to post an opinion?

how did you do btw?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, I am also posting my opinion. In that its stupid to not play in the WSOP main event because their payouts are flatter. In fact it favors the worse players, so the flatter payout should actually encourage you to play next year.

I didn't play this year, but considering you spent a bunch of money to go to vegas and play in the WSOP, I did considerably better than you.

[Zinzan]

[ QUOTE ]
1. the pokerstars factor: no champ will probably = less seats awarded by them next year

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know about that. First, it's not like PokerStars gave away seats--the prize pool paid for the seats. Plus, Party had two players at the final table, and that may help their marketing. And finally, more players than ever before now "know someone that played in the WSOP", and are very motivated to get in next year.

-Z

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't play this year, but considering you spent a bunch of money to go to vegas and play in the WSOP, I did considerably better than you.

[/ QUOTE ]


i will bet you double your bankroll that i made more money in the time i was in vegas than you did during the same period.

[MicroBob]

I'm actually more interested in it for the flatter pay-out structure.
Giving $12-million or so to first place would be bigger publicity I think though (and I talked with lots of players who just assumed that 1st would be this high just because of the increased size of the field....obviously they hadn't heard about the flatter structure).


I think the increased exposure of the WSOP-circuit might provide an impetus to bring in more players.

but I also think there were a LOT of players who went out there...played in a few prelim events OR the main-event...and got clobbered.
For some of these players they might have 'learned a lesson' and will say "screw this. I can't ever get any good cards over there" or something.
Obviously some of them will come back with renewed determination.
Not sure.

I, for one, and hoping I can make it back there AND play 2 or 3 prelim events (I just played 1 prelim event this time).


For now, I'm predicting about the same number of players.
But with the ever increasing ESPN coverage as well as the new CBS show who knows??
Also, the online sites have only recently been permitted to advertise in the dot-net way for just a few months.
We've got the TV ads all over NBC and the Travel Channel now (not sure if they're on ESPN during the WSOP or not...but I think they are).
This is important....a handful of TV hands scattered around is MUCH different than the almost constant exposure we have on the major cable and broadcast networks these days as they increasingly show they are no longer as reluctant to air these party and stars dot-net spots.
A year ago at this time there were very few TV ads out there (they weren't on NBC, WPT or ESPN at all because even with the dot-net method they were still fearing the DOJ).

[Iplayragstoo]

Kick his ass Granny! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[rheaume]

[ QUOTE ]

But with the ever increasing ESPN coverage as well as the new CBS show who knows??

[/ QUOTE ]

whats this about cbs?

[Sponger.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't play this year, but considering you spent a bunch of money to go to vegas and play in the WSOP, I did considerably better than you.

[/ QUOTE ]
i will bet you double your bankroll that i made more money in the time i was in vegas than you did during the same period.

[/ QUOTE ]

no no how about triple! or quadruple!

Million dollar HU freezeout at the Bellagio....

unless you're too chicken.

[billyjex]

that's retarded if you wouldn't play because of a flat payout structure. 7.5 million or 12 million? is it really that big of a deal? the chances of you winning are pretty much nill.. but finishing in the money and getting a good payday.. not bad.

[GrannyMae]

i had only 20% of my action.

[Schneids]

Regarding the flat pay outs:

I am of the camp that believes tournament poker is going to kill the poker boom. The only way this avoids happening is by making the payouts as flat as possible. If you put all the money at the top a few select people get all of it and most likely take the money out of our poker economy. Spread it out and you keep a lot more players, many of whom are bad, in the game longer and playing higher than they should be. There's already so much money that goes from being in the poker economy to outside of it after each tournament and the winners it crowns, so lets keep that effect as small as possible by keeping a flat payout.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

4. the final table factor:

imo, this will not make for break-out ratings because it was a relative no-name line up.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was a no-name like up in both 2003 and 2004 with the exception of Harrington (who a few new in 2003 for his championship and everyone new in 2004).

Besides, having several name players at the final table isn't important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amir Vahedi and Sammy Farha were no names in 2003?

[Howard Treesong]

Isn't this a non-self-weighting proposition, Granny?

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the flat pay outs:

I am of the camp that believes tournament poker is going to kill the poker boom. The only way this avoids happening is by making the payouts as flat as possible. If you put all the money at the top a few select people get all of it and most likely take the money out of our poker economy. Spread it out and you keep a lot more players, many of whom are bad, in the game longer and playing higher than they should be. There's already so much money that goes from being in the poker economy to outside of it after each tournament and the winners it crowns, so lets keep that effect as small as possible by keeping a flat payout.

[/ QUOTE ]

well stated, valid points. there is huge money being tossed around and by nature the house's take will begin to erode the wealth even more as it adds up.

i think my biggest problem was having only 20% of myself. this may sound stupid, but had i won $100k, i would have been unhappy. after taxes and the pain in the ass of issuing 125 1099's, i would have been exhausted and barely ahead. i'm certain that my strong view on this is a result of me not having enough at stake. if i had 100% of myself, i would have been THRILLED with $100k and not even sobbing on $12.5k.

point taken

[Sponger.]

[ QUOTE ]
Amir Vahedi and Sammy Farha were no names in 2003?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anyone know who they were before 2003? No.

[dogmeat]

IMHO, there will be 6600 players next year for the main event. With regard to the flattened payout, I don't even dream about coming in first with that many players. However, I might get lucky enough to last till there are only eight or ten tables..and that would be a great payout for me.

I'll be there again next year /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Rushmore]

I'll tell you why there should be less players next year:

Because it's the freakin WORLD SERIES OF POKER, and it's time to raise the entry to at least $15K, and probably $20K.

[GrannyMae]

Because it's the freakin WORLD SERIES OF POKER, and it's time to raise the entry to at least $15K, and probably $20K.


of course this is the solution. but they nixed it officially i understand. wpt ME has no problem getting $25k, so wsop is blowing it imo.

they could do a $7500 event in addition to a $15k-$25k ME.

[curtains]

Its really shocking to me that anyone would dislike the flat payout structure. The large majority of people dont give a crap if they win 7 million or 12 million, either one is filthy rich. Whereas coming in 100th and still making a HUGE amount of money means a ton to MOST people.

I mean really Granny, how can you be upset about 7.5 million for first, it would change your life basically the exact same amount that winning 12 million would, unless theres something I don't know about you. And I believe this stands for over 98% of the field.

Also amateurs like to know that if they last deep into the event they can score a huge paycheck instead of having to have a miracle first place finish.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Amir Vahedi and Sammy Farha were no names in 2003?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anyone know who they were before 2003? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree. 99%+ of ESPN viewers didn't know those guys.

I believe they were succesful high limit players. But, they weren't well known.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
1. the pokerstars factor:

no champ will probably = less seats awarded by them next year


[/ QUOTE ]

You know Poker Stars DO make money with the satellites, right?

[love utg]

I agree with your points. But at this point I think you have to look at what the poker climate will like in general -- for example will the news TV shows plannned promote poker or contribute to burning it out? I'm not sure. Regardless of the WSOP Champ Final Table (man I wish Raymer, Ivey, and Matastow (Sp?) would have been on it), I'm wondering when the poker boom will settle? Are we creating right now or is there a bigger wave yet to come? What do you all think?

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it's the freakin WORLD SERIES OF POKER, and it's time to raise the entry to at least $15K, and probably $20K.


of course this is the solution. but they nixed it officially i understand. wpt ME has no problem getting $25k, so wsop is blowing it imo.

they could do a $7500 event in addition to a $15k-$25k ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason this won't happen is simple economics. Would the Rio and Harrahs prefer to have 6000 players who have put up 10K or only 3 - 3500 players who can afford the 20k buyin?

I know many of you will say the number will be the same due to internet qualifiers, but if the buyin for the WSOP is 2-2.5x higher, this will lead to less online qualifiers due to the higher cost of the satelite's entry fees.

[Wabby]

Granny, you forgot one...

5/ The Poker Boom has just barely started in Europe. The last 3-6 months have seen many, many more players, and a lot of attention in the newspapers. There will be MANY more european players next year.

[PartySNGer]

[ QUOTE ]
1. the pokerstars factor:

no champ will probably = less seats awarded by them next year

2. the australian factor:

god bless him, but the no-name from the sparsely populated continent will not help draw any extra players except aussies. that amounts to about 10 more players

3. the flat payout factor:

i know that 99% of people disagree with me on this issue, but i hated the $7.5 million for first. all i can say is that i personally will not play the ME next year because of this. i think that other's who feel the same way will be a higher number than most think. there will be less returning players imo.

4. the final table factor:

imo, this will not make for break-out ratings because it was a relative no-name line up.



sorry, had to get this off my chest.

that is all.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a/byebye.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about how idiotic point #3 sounds, if 99% of people are saying that the flat payout structure is better, than more people will be interested in playing, do you see why?

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]

The reason this won't happen is simple economics. Would the Rio and Harrahs prefer to have 6000 players who have put up 10K or only 3 - 3500 players who can afford the 20k buyin?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Harrah's probably would prefer half as many players at double the buyin as it would take one less day to run the tournament for the same rake. 3300 less players is 330 less dealer-days, a pretty significant expense. But for now, tradition stands.

[Army Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Amir Vahedi and Sammy Farha were no names in 2003?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anyone know who they were before 2003? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree. 99%+ of ESPN viewers didn't know those guys.

I believe they were succesful high limit players. But, they weren't well known.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were well-known to people who followed poker.

To ESPN noobs, maybe not so, but who WAS well-known to ESPN noobs at the time? Hardly anybody.

[jwesty5]

[ QUOTE ]


I think Harrah's probably would prefer half as many players at double the buyin as it would take one less day to run the tournament for the same rake. 3300 less players is 330 less dealer-days, a pretty significant expense. But for now, tradition stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think Harrah's would rather have a shot at renting rooms to 6000 people than 3000 people? Not really sure your "dealer Day's" number is on the money either.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think Harrah's would rather have a shot at renting rooms to 6000 people than 3000 people? Not really sure your "dealer Day's" number is on the money either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the guests the 6000 players bring. My wife stayed with me at the Mirage (Stars room) but my old college roomate and my brother both got rooms at the Rio, with the intention of hanging out, watching me, taking in the atmosphere, etc. I'd bet I wasn't the only donkey who brought a cadre of guests with them.

Phil Gordon interviewed WSOP 'fans' on his Podcast - people who came to town just to watch the ME. I have to think Harrah's enjoys the buzz (like the cover of the USA Today) they're getting when 6000 people show up in one spot to play poker for $60,000,000. I suspect a $25k entry would produce a similar buzz - but the appeal of the WSOP, IMO, isn't that it's necessarily the best poker being played by the best players. It's that it's the most democratic competition I can think of: Home game heros, internet donkeys, celebrities, unkown pros, the world's best and most recognizable pros, gamblers, homeless guys (did Ellix play in the ME?), 21 year old college students who qualified for $3 on UltimatePartyStarsPoker.com, British women who don't have a clue, Austrialian hooligans, and Elmo all come to Vegas, plop down $10k to play poker, and ESPN shows up to film it.

If the buy-in were raised to $25k, I'm faily certain that the WSOP ME looses some of its democratic appeal - an appeal that seems very marketable (I wonder if Harrah's management feels the same way; I would guess they do). Perhaps the extra $15k isn't much of a deterrant. But if it would deter attacting some of the characters that makes the WSOP so much fun and appealing (and for Harrah's, marketable), I'd be hesistant to raise the buy in.

[Wabby]

well spoken

[shaniac]

Granny,

I'm sorry, but your 3rd point is absolutely ridiculous. You might not WANT such a "flat" payout structure (and based on this desire I have to assume you don't play tournaments in any dedicated way, but that's neither her not there) but first place in 2005 was 50% more than first place in 2004. That's huge. Not to mention that they awarded seven-figures to 9 players and six-figures to dozens more. As long as the prize gets consistently bigger, the organizers are doing the right thing. By most reasonable standards and with only a few exceptions, the payout structure this year was great.

Regarding point 4: Why would it encourage more random people to come and play in 2006 if the table was stocked with top pros. If you ask me, the apparent ability for "no-names" to reach the top spots should be a huge incentive for other recreational players to come out and give it a shot.

As for those who keep clamoring for an increase in the buyin: Yeah, inflation might make 10K worth less than it was 20 years ago, but the poker economy has always functioned somewhat separately from the real economy and $10,000 is still a whole lot of money for one tournament. I see no reason to create a bigger buyin and exclude people. WSOP's directors are not dropping the ball, they are doing a marvelous job of making the WSOP the most inclusive, ambitious tournament anywhere in the world and as FossilMan pointed out in his press conference, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The numbers in 2006 will be influenced much more by the general poker market (over-saturation of 10K events will be more detrimental to attendance figures than anything else, imo) than any of the factors you mentioned.

Shane

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Amir Vahedi and Sammy Farha were no names in 2003?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anyone know who they were before 2003? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree. 99%+ of ESPN viewers didn't know those guys.

I believe they were succesful high limit players. But, they weren't well known.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were well-known to people who followed poker.

To ESPN noobs, maybe not so, but who WAS well-known to ESPN noobs at the time? Hardly anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, you prove the point. ESPN noobs, of which I am proudly one, started following poker when people we didn't know won.

Likewise, new ESPN noobs will start playing when they watch a final table with people they don't know, even though us old timer ESPN noobs now know who everyone is and would rather see some of the Pros make it.

NCAces

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
(over-saturation of 10K events will be more detrimental to attendance figures than anything else, imo)

[/ QUOTE ]



yeah. i'm not sure if all the WSOP-circuit and WPT events all over the place will whet more players' appetites to find a way to get to Vegas in July....or if many players will simply play in these 'other' events instead.


The WSOP-circuit and WPT is getting kind of wacky.

The WSOP-circuit comes to Tunica next month so I will probably go and check that out (maybe play in a $500 or $1000 prelim event).
They are also coming to Louisville in a couple months (Caesar's Indiana) and then New Orleans later next year.

Also will come BACK to Tunica in January to the Grand Casino...and at roughly the same time (or maybe it's the following week) the WPT has their World Poker Open at the Gold Strike.

That's a LOT of poker in the south!!

and in January you basically have back to back $10k events in Tunica at the Grand and the Gold Strike....not to mention all the prelim events (the WPO at the Gold Strike is 3 weeks worth of events....and the Grand is running a ton of prelim tourneys too).


Will all this tourney exposure help the actual WSOP in July??
I have a feeling that many of the area players (anyone in the southeastern half of the US....all the way down to Texas and Florida perhaps) might play in the Tunica, Louisville and/or New Orleans circuit events INSTEAD of the main-event.


Some who make it into the money in any of these events MIGHT make it out to Vegas in July.
But for the typical player who wants to play a big event and isn;t likely to cash they can just do these southern tourneys instead....and most people only have so much time that they can use for travel OR so much dough that they can spend on tourneys and other expenses.

That's my take on the south.
Obviously there is a semi-similar situation in the Northeast with AC and Foxwoods tourneys.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe they were succesful high limit players. But, they weren't well known.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Vahedi has never been a sucessful high limit player. In fact, he has lost alot of his tournament winnings playing cash games. Farha I have no first-hand knowledge of, but I've heard from many pros that he is a terror in big limit omaha.

Tuco.

[shaniac]

I will remain bullish on the WSOP 2006 in July. I think it's more likely that the rest of the circuit tour will have to be be cut down in size in years to come. And similarly likely that many of the circuit events this year will have lame turnouts. I can't imagine anyone in his right mind willingly going to Atlantic City three times this year for WSOPCT events.

If it came down to a player with a limited amount of time and money, there's no reason he would choose to play in one of the circuit series over the July WSOP, since Vegas is just far more fun and exciting than anything else offered on tour.

The WPT doesn't seem to have expanded its schedule in any significant way since its inception, and I believe those events will continue to be well attended and prestigious.

[MicroBob]

yeah. you might be right.

my only counter-point is to reiterate that SOME players might choose to stay local rather than heading all the way out to Vegas (even if it is more fun....staying in your general region is just more convenient).


I'm not sure how lame the turn-outs for these will be either.
They are advertising the crap out of the whole WSOP-circuit thing.

The event at the Grand in Tunica next month will be interesting to check out seeing as they just announced the freaking thing and it's only 1 month removed from the big one. My prediction is that it will be pretty damn crowded though.

Those who played in the WSOP-circuit event in New Orleans a couple months ago reported that the crowds were bigger than they could handle.

I suspect the event in Louisville will be wildly popular as well drawing from Nashville up to Chicago and Detroit perhaps.

But your point about 3 events in AC is a good one. Will enough people keep coming out to these to keep them going?


I'm now thinking that we might both be right.
There are too many tourneys so the fields will get diluted...but that doesn't mean that everyone is just going to sit back and wait for the big one in Vegas when there's a WSOP-circuit event in their backyard.

There was a TV story on the news about the Grand hosting a WSOP-circuit event next month.
They said "the world's most prestigious poker tourney is coming to Memphis" blah blah blah.
They are REALLY pumping that WSOP name.

So, for many people, I think that playing in a WSOP-circuit event is like them being able to say 'I played in the WSOP when it came out here' kinda / sorta.



Sigh - I don't know. I'll be interested to see what kinds of turn-outs they get and how the main-event does next year. And I probably should get out of the business of trying to predict any of this crap because there's no way any of us really have any clue what's going to happen.

[fsuplayer]

reading this thread, im getting that flat payouts are better for poker and worse players, and that the OP should have paid his own way if he wouldnt have been happy with a $100k prize

[ QUOTE ]

i think my biggest problem was having only 20% of myself. this may sound stupid, but had i won $100k, i would have been unhappy. after taxes and the pain in the ass of issuing 125 1099's, i would have been exhausted and barely ahead. i'm certain that my strong view on this is a result of me not having enough at stake. if i had 100% of myself, i would have been THRILLED with $100k and not even sobbing on $12.5k.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kevmath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But with the ever increasing ESPN coverage as well as the new CBS show who knows??

[/ QUOTE ]

whats this about cbs?

[/ QUOTE ]

CBS is going to be airing tournaments run by Projopoker.com, the first tournament will be Christmas day. The theory is that "Joes" (Amateurs) will play against the pros. The plan is to have certain ranked pros play a semifinal table, while the amateurs play the other semifinal, with the top 4 at each table go to the final table.

Kevin...

[fnurt]

You have to issue 125 1099's? I thought the whole point of listing your backers on the W-2G was so you wouldn't have to do that.

[rheaume]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But with the ever increasing ESPN coverage as well as the new CBS show who knows??

[/ QUOTE ]

whats this about cbs?

[/ QUOTE ]

CBS is going to be airing tournaments run by Projopoker.com, the first tournament will be Christmas day. The theory is that "Joes" (Amateurs) will play against the pros. The plan is to have certain ranked pros play a semifinal table, while the amateurs play the other semifinal, with the top 4 at each table go to the final table.

Kevin...

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the info kev

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to issue 125 1099's? I thought the whole point of listing your backers on the W-2G was so you wouldn't have to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

it would have been easiest, but it was pointed out that

1. legally it had to be done that way
2. i would have been a much higher bracket than some investors, so they would have made more money claiming on own.


listing your backers on the W-2G


the only way they may have even considered doing this is if i had shown up with everyone's social. they still may have balked. i was told they did it for greg because the list was short and he had all his ducks ready.

[TheKnife]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll tell you why there should be less players next year:

Because it's the freakin WORLD SERIES OF POKER, and it's time to raise the entry to at least $15K, and probably $20K.

[/ QUOTE ] This is what needs to happen

[AceHigh]

The average ESPN WSOP viewer is more likely to know who Ron Mexico is than Phil Ivey.

Do you really think the average viewer knew Sam Fahra or Josh Arieh before last years WSOP?

[oreopimp]

Wrong.

10 million dollars will always attract more than a few ppl.

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

4. the final table factor:

imo, this will not make for break-out ratings because it was a relative no-name line up.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was a no-name like up in both 2003 and 2004 with the exception of Harrington (who a few new in 2003 for his championship and everyone new in 2004).

Besides, having several name players at the final table isn't important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amir Vahedi and Sammy Farha were no names in 2003?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, to 99% of the viewers at that time.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think Harrah's would rather have a shot at renting rooms to 6000 people than 3000 people? Not really sure your "dealer Day's" number is on the money either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the guests the 6000 players bring. My wife stayed with me at the Mirage (Stars room) but my old college roomate and my brother both got rooms at the Rio, with the intention of hanging out, watching me, taking in the atmosphere, etc. I'd bet I wasn't the only donkey who brought a cadre of guests with them.

Phil Gordon interviewed WSOP 'fans' on his Podcast - people who came to town just to watch the ME. I have to think Harrah's enjoys the buzz (like the cover of the USA Today) they're getting when 6000 people show up in one spot to play poker for $60,000,000. I suspect a $25k entry would produce a similar buzz - but the appeal of the WSOP, IMO, isn't that it's necessarily the best poker being played by the best players. It's that it's the most democratic competition I can think of: Home game heros, internet donkeys, celebrities, unkown pros, the world's best and most recognizable pros, gamblers, homeless guys (did Ellix play in the ME?), 21 year old college students who qualified for $3 on UltimatePartyStarsPoker.com, British women who don't have a clue, Austrialian hooligans, and Elmo all come to Vegas, plop down $10k to play poker, and ESPN shows up to film it.

If the buy-in were raised to $25k, I'm faily certain that the WSOP ME looses some of its democratic appeal - an appeal that seems very marketable (I wonder if Harrah's management feels the same way; I would guess they do). Perhaps the extra $15k isn't much of a deterrant. But if it would deter attacting some of the characters that makes the WSOP so much fun and appealing (and for Harrah's, marketable), I'd be hesistant to raise the buy in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. What I would like them to do instead is to have higher buy-in prelims, like 10K Limit Hold'em and 10K Stud, and maybe a $7.5K Omaha-8. That way, some of the big-money presigiousness can come back while keeping the democratic appeal (as you put it).

[Rotflmao]

3. the flat payout factor:

i know that 99% of people disagree with me on this issue, but i hated the $7.5 million for first. all i can say is that i personally will not play the ME next year because of this. i think that other's who feel the same way will be a higher number than most think. there will be less returning players imo

lol mabye you wont go because the people on here wont put you in twice lol. Why do all you fools bitch about the payout when you made 0? Mabye the champ wont play next year because he was ONLY paid 7.5 million

[Rotflmao]

Granny how much did 5325th pay?


rotflmao

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think Harrah's probably would prefer half as many players at double the buyin as it would take one less day to run the tournament for the same rake. 3300 less players is 330 less dealer-days, a pretty significant expense. But for now, tradition stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think Harrah's would rather have a shot at renting rooms to 6000 people than 3000 people? Not really sure your "dealer Day's" number is on the money either.

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem with the 10K buyin is, the tournament will soon be out of hand. How many first day heats will they have 2 years from now? What about 5 years? If 18K people enter, are they really going to have a weeks worth of "Day 1"s?

Bumping the entry to 20K next year "might" cut the field in half (i doubt it). 25K next year, or wait a year and then make it 50K would IMO be the way to go.

[Dbldaggers]

Playing is the WSOP is a dream come true for most poker players.

Congrates on being able to play in the tourney. I have really enjoyed reading your trip report.


I would have to say though that a flater payout will encourage more people to make the attempt.

Most people can not afford to play in the WSOP. Enjoy your memories. They will be kicking dirt on all of us in 100 years or sooner... so hey enjoy the ride till then.

DD

[PokrLikeItsProse]

The only thing that matters is the logistical factor. Is Harrah's both willing and capable of running a bigger main event? I think we have seen the rough limit as to how many players can be accomodated on given day one if there are multiple starting days.

Next year, the WSOP main event will have a cap, as it did this year. The only thing that will prevent the main event from exceeding this year's (barring unforeseen acts of God) is if the cap on participants is not raised. (I actually think that another 9/11 type incident occurring one month before the main event and affecting the airline industry similarly wouldn't retard field group if the cap was raised.)

[fnurt]

Even now, it's silly to play day 1a, and get 2 full days off before you resume action. Expanding day 1 any further just gets crazy.

There has to be SOME limit to how much more the field can expand while the buyin remains at $10k.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
Even now, it's silly to play day 1a, and get 2 full days off before you resume action. Expanding day 1 any further just gets crazy.

There has to be SOME limit to how much more the field can expand while the buyin remains at $10k.

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. They could have used one of the many other convention rooms and ran 400 tables instead of 200.

[Aleo]

[ QUOTE ]
3. the flat payout factor:

i know that 99% of people disagree with me on this issue, but i hated the $7.5 million for first. all i can say is that i personally will not play the ME next year because of this. i think that other's who feel the same way will be a higher number than most think. there will be less returning players imo.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why are people so insistent on the claim that the payout was flatter? They still paid 10% of the field, and that still escalated to the top finishing prize. It only seems flatter because the winner made a smaller amount than the previous winners in terms of his % of the prize pool. That seems important, but it is really secondary to whether or not the same % of the field made the same % of the prize pool. This has to be looked at on a percentile basis, not on an individual finishing position basis.

After all, what does it matter that you finished xth place if you are not taking into account the number of entrants? Just making the final table this year was the equivalent of winning a 560 person tourney (in terms of % of field that gets this far) and you would suggest that in the 560 man tourney we should pay the first place finisher (say) 30% and yet do the same thing in the 5600 person tourney?!

In truth, we should be willing to pay the final table 30%, not the winner, and this is essentially what happened.

If you were to look at it as a graph of what % of the field recieved what % of the prize pool, it's not that much different this year as any other year. Well, not so different as many are suggesting anyways.

Regards
Brad S

[Nalapoint1]

I can understand Tiger Woods wanting appearance fees at smaller events because he can make $80 million/year in endorsements and a $200k first place payout is not worth his time. Now we have a multi bracelet winning, spoiled poker player that draws huge crowds, boycotting the WSOP ME because he doesnt like the payout and thinks $7.5 million for first place is not enough.

Name me 2 competetive events that pay more than $3million to first.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
Name me 2 competetive events that pay more than $3million to first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name me 2 competitive events where the best player in the world has a ~1/1500 chance of winning.

In fact don't, 'cos then you'd show me up.

[billyb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
all i can say is that i personally will not play the ME next year because of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious????
I mean 7.5 mil isn't enough for first????
I thought it was great that they flattened it. If you make the money you should get more than your money back.

I played this year and now I want to play next year more than ever.

peace
billyb

[Paluka]

I'll chime in on the flat payout structure:

I think that the flatter payout structure is good for poker, but I actually disklike it on the bottom end. I think the minimum prize awarded should be 2x the buyin or so. Paying 10k to enter a tourney and winning 12k is uninteresting.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even now, it's silly to play day 1a, and get 2 full days off before you resume action. Expanding day 1 any further just gets crazy.

There has to be SOME limit to how much more the field can expand while the buyin remains at $10k.

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. They could have used one of the many other convention rooms and ran 400 tables instead of 200.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first thing that occurs to me here is that that would entail finding another 200-250 qualified dealers, plus competent floor people. I have no personal knowledge of whether that is doable.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
Paying 10k to enter a tourney and winning 12k is uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, but paying $190 to enter (as I did) and winning $12k (as I wish I did) is very interesting.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Why are people so insistent on the claim that the payout was flatter?...This has to be looked at on a percentile basis, not on an individual finishing position basis.

If you were to look at it as a graph of what % of the field recieved what % of the prize pool, it's not that much different this year as any other year.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are very wong on that last statement. I made a post about this in the last couple weeks. The final table payouts have dropped dramatically. Here are the #'s.

2005: 5,619 players; $52,818,600 prize pool

1st: 7,500,000 (14.20%)
2nd: 4,250,000 (8.05%)
3rd: 2,500,000 (4.73%)
4th: 2,000,000 (3.79%)
5th: 1,750,000 (3.31%)
6th: 1,500,000 (2.84%)
7th: 1,300,000 (2.46%)
8th: 1,150,000 (2.18%)
9th: 1,000,000 (1.89%)

<font color="red">2005 Final Table: $22,950,000 (43.45%) </font>


2004: 2,576 players; $24,214,400 prize pool (plus extra $10,00 paid out by Harrah's to bubble players)[/b]

1st: 5,000,000 (20.65%)
2nd: 3,500,000 (14.45%)
3rd: 2,500,000 (10.32%)
4th: 1,500,000 (6.19%)
5th: 1,100,000 (4.54%)
6th: 800,000 (3.30%)
7th: 675,000 (2.79%)
8th: 575,000 (2.37%)
9th: 470,400 (1.94%)

<font color="red">2004 inal Table: $16,120,000 (66.57%) </font>


2003: 839 players; $7,802,700 prize pool

1st: 2,500,000 (32.04%)
2nd: 1,300,000 (16.67%)
3rd: 650,000 (8.33%)
4th: 440,000 (5.64%)
5th: 320,000 (4.10%)
6th: 260,000 (3.33%)
7th: 200,000 (2.56%)
8th: 160,000 (2.05%)
9th: 120,000 (1.54%)

<font color="red">2003 Final Table: 5,950,000 (76.26%) </font>

[shaniac]

I'm only a casual historian of the World Series, but it seems to me that the WSOP has always maintained an independent character from other poker tournaments.

Who cares if the trend in payout structures is to pay 25-30% to first place? Joe Hachem walked away with a purse that both befit a tournament as prestigious as the WSOP AND was mindblowingly larger than any other first in a year littered with 10K (even the 25K WPT didn't come close) events.

Not only that (or the final table of millionaries, which was very cool), but they managed to pay a whole slew of people an amount greater than their buyin (12K or so was the minimum payout I believe) and rewarded some serious hard work to a diverse section of poker players. Think of all the lower limit players who fought their way in to the series for $200-2K and can go home with a nice amount of cash in their pockets and great stories and a proper feeling of accomplishment. Forget about the "it brings fish to the game" argument, poker should be agbout enerating those quixotic tales and it's unequivocally great that for 500+ people in this year's ME, it did.

Instead of b*tching about the "flatter" structure of the WSOP, we should be figuring out ways to make sure ALL major tournaments have such reasonable payouts.

just my thoughts (not a response to Dynasty obv.)

Shane

[MicroBob]

Just to compare:


The PPM IV cruise:

735 players (90% online qualifiers) at $10k apiece.

1st place - $1.5 million
2nd place - $1 million


54th through 144th - $10.4k
145th through 180th - $5.2.k


I talked with several $10k winners who were thrilled at their success. I finished 177th for $5.2k and was pretty damned pleased with myself too...although this was my first ever major tourney so I think my excitement wa understandable.

I was 67th out of 280 remaining after the day 1 heats...so I'm a bit disappointed that I didn't crack the $10k level....but when we finally had our 181st place finisher (thus ensuring that we were in the money)
my reaction at the table at making the money was one of genuine excitement.

I think the real complaint about this structure was that 144th got the same money as 54th which is kind of weird.

Otherwise, I think most people liked the flatter structure becuase most people paid significantly less than $10k to be there.


I believe that the UB tourney in Aruba is very similar in pay-out structure...except perhaps even flatter incredibly enough.


FWIW - I don't think it is necessary any more for the WSOP to have 60% or more of the prize-money saved for the final table.

[teamdonkey]

not exactly a fair comparison. In 2003, the final table represented the top 1.07% of the field, in 2005 the final table was the top 0.16%. Of course the 2003 payout will be higher... it includes the top 10% of all players making the money.

If you look at the top 0.16% of the 2003 payouts, it represents 1st place and 1/3 of 2nd, which comes to 37.77% of the prize pool. 2005, the top 0.16% payed out 43.45%. In 2004 it comes out higher, the top 0.16% brought home 52.18% of the prize pool.

This years payouts may have been flatter than last years, but were certainly better than 2 years ago.

Compare Pokerstars payouts for various sized tournaments:

1201-1500 entrants:
1-23%
2-13.5
3-8.8
4-6.5
5-5.3
6-4.3
7-3.3
8-2.3
9-1.5

1501-2000 entrants:
1-22%
2-13
3-8.5
4-6.3
5-5.1
6-4.0
7-3.0
8-2.08
9-1.37

2001-2500 entrants:
1-21%
2-12.4
3-8
4-6.2
5-4.8
6-3.7
7-2.8
8-2.0
9-1.3

2501-5000 entrants:
1-20%
2-12
3-7.6
4-5.9
5-4.6
6-3.6
7-2.7
8-1.9
9-1.2

As field size increases, payout percentage for the final table decreases. Pretty Standard.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
not exactly a fair comparison. In 2003, the final table represented the top 1.07% of the field, in 2005 the final table was the top 0.16%. Of course the 2003 payout will be higher... it includes the top 10% of all players making the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

That occured to me while I was out for a walk. It would take some serious work to do an analysis showing how the pay structure has flattened overall.

[Easy E]

but i hated the $7.5 million for first

Yes, getting paid 750:1 always sucks... as does 100:1 for getting 9th.

You really think you have a better rate of return if 1st was $15-20M, so it would be "worth" playing then??

If you seriously are not playing the main event because you "only" get $7.5 million.... then you are seriously downgraded in my list. Stick to playing online, where the payouts are oh so high.

there will be less returning players imo Less returning player than what, the previous years? Bullshit


Bad, bad thought process. And I pretty much apply that for every point that you made.
I'll take the over 6000 for next year, myself.

[Easy E]

So then it wasn't the flat payout structure that's the problem, it's that you can't come up with your own scratch?

1.5 mill and the bracelet isn't good enough for 2 grand?

You're looking worse and worse here, Granny. Back to the retirement home with you.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

That occured to me while I was out for a walk. It would take some serious work to do an analysis showing how the pay structure has flattened overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

drawing a couple bar graphs should do it.

[Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll chime in on the flat payout structure:

I think that the flatter payout structure is good for poker, but I actually disklike it on the bottom end. I think the minimum prize awarded should be 2x the buyin or so. Paying 10k to enter a tourney and winning 12k is uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slightly clueless question.

What % of people are satting into the WSOP vs. buying in?

I know that on some of the very flat WPT events (I'm thinking aruba) the thought was that so many people satted it it was more of a "pay 200 to win 12K" than "10K to win 12K"). I'm not saying that's right, but it may explain the though process that keeps a slightly comical-at-face-value payout structure in place.

The point Schneids makes is really hard to argue.

[m1illion]

I have not heard any horror stories but it was reported that several hundred players got shut out because Harrah's did not accept third party registrations from internet websites. this was to avoid the wrath of the Nevada Gaming Commision which views online poker as illegal and apparently was monitoring the situation carefully. There were in fact close to 6500 entries in this years ME.
So once the work arounds are made I think it is easy to speculate that many more people will be in next years event.

[Smoothcall]

Why does the flat payout structure bother you so much to deter you from playing?

[Smoothcall]

And whats wrong with only having to make the final table to become a millionaire?

[Milo]

Journeyman players like myself, who are winners at SS games know we have no realistic shot to win it all. A flat structure gives this type of player a reasonable chance to cash. Since most players satellite in, they make many times their investment, even if they only "win" their buy ins back.

[octop]

Microbob

Having 144th and 54th get the same price is the most rediculous thing Ive ever heard in my life

Conrats on the money

[Smoothcall]

I didn't ask why you like it. I asked why Grannymae doesn't like it. Imo i like it better because it is very hard to get 1st who the flat payout structure hurts the most. So its nice to spread the wealth down the line a bit so everybody can a healthy payday intead of just the top 3 or whatever that it used to be. And i'm content if it happens to hurt me the few times i win. I can live with 7.5 mil!

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll tell you why there should be less players next year:

Because it's the freakin WORLD SERIES OF POKER, and it's time to raise the entry to at least $15K, and probably $20K.

[/ QUOTE ] This is what needs to happen

[/ QUOTE ]

The point should be to achieve the largest prize pool possible. Do you think a larger entry fee would acomplish this? I have no idea- I wonder what the optimal entry fee would be for maximizing the pool.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll chime in on the flat payout structure:

I think that the flatter payout structure is good for poker, but I actually disklike it on the bottom end. I think the minimum prize awarded should be 2x the buyin or so. Paying 10k to enter a tourney and winning 12k is uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay but for all those that qualify for 40 dollars on Pokerstars, it's a lot more interesting.

[Eegs]

interesting points but this cant be correct.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the flat pay outs:

I am of the camp that believes tournament poker is going to kill the poker boom. The only way this avoids happening is by making the payouts as flat as possible. If you put all the money at the top a few select people get all of it and most likely take the money out of our poker economy. Spread it out and you keep a lot more players, many of whom are bad, in the game longer and playing higher than they should be. There's already so much money that goes from being in the poker economy to outside of it after each tournament and the winners it crowns, so lets keep that effect as small as possible by keeping a flat payout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tournament poker built the poker boom. How many people are getting into poker because they see exciting ring games being televised?

I would hazzard a guess that more money leaves the poker economy through low limit rake than tournies. (You may not consider that leaving the economy, but it certainly comes off the table.) I have always viewed this argument, one which Feeney also presents in ITPM, as "damnit! losing players are locking up a win before I can take it from them!" By your rationale, all successfull ring game pro's will kill the game. They probably take more out of the economy than the guys who get lucky and end up with a big score.

I happen to aggree with you though, that in large field events flatter pay structures are better. A lot of that is selfish, too, in that tournament poker is probably my strongest area, but flatter payouts seem to me to just reduce variance, not expectation (well, a little expectation, but not much). (The structure in the tournies I have played just has the blind to stack ratio getting too big too quickly; in slower structures you are probably sacraficing more expectation and not reducing variance by as much. Still, in multi day events, I would guess that variation is going to be exagerated due to the prolonged stress and probable fatigue, but I digress.)

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll chime in on the flat payout structure:

I think that the flatter payout structure is good for poker, but I actually disklike it on the bottom end. I think the minimum prize awarded should be 2x the buyin or so. Paying 10k to enter a tourney and winning 12k is uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, though less so for bigger events where an awful lot of the filed got in through satelites than events where most of the people buy in directly. When someone got in by playing a few $160 double shoot outs, that $12k is compared, by the person, to the 500-600 they actually spent winning their way in. (But the guy who bought in directly is going to feel pretty frustrated if he only wins his buy in back, I'm sure.)

[FoxwoodsFiend]

I think you underestimate the allure of so much money has on the average viewer. Also, last year's final table wasn't too exciting-sure everybody knows Action Dan, but to that point Josh Arieh, David Williams, and Greg Raymer were all unknowns. The point is that they get turned into characters that are appealing, and with a little packaging of Dannenman's drunken ways and Hachem's Australian charm on top of Matusow pulling ridiculous antics constantly, there's no reason why this final table shouldn't be full of characters that become superpopular.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't play this year, but considering you spent a bunch of money to go to vegas and play in the WSOP, I did considerably better than you.

[/ QUOTE ]


i will bet you double your bankroll that i made more money in the time i was in vegas than you did during the same period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah? Well Sponger's dad can beat up your dad, so there.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
Granny, you forgot one...

5/ The Poker Boom has just barely started in Europe. The last 3-6 months have seen many, many more players, and a lot of attention in the newspapers. There will be MANY more european players next year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another consideration is demographics. I believe that there are more and more young kids who in their teenage years started watching and playing home games and once they turn 21 they're going to start playing all the time. Whether that's had the chance to play out for next year, I don't know, but I think it's easy to forget the influx of eligible players who are going to be signing up for WSOP satellites all day long.

[PokerNeal]

On the contrary it will attract a larger pool. Here is why:

1. Poker is basically a mental game. Since when is the last time Aussies were known for their mental prowess? China and India are mad at this. They will send a hundred thousand from each country and hope sheer volume will produce a winner for them.

2. Doyle Brunson is very upset at this. Amarillo Slim is furious. They are galvanizing a grass roots movement in Texas to send every able bodied Texan to the world series. Dammit, Hold'em is a Texan game and it is time Texans started winning this thing. Ross Perot apparently will finance this popular movement. Expect half a million from texas.

3. TV and cable networks are holding several closed door meetings in New York and Hollywood. ESPN is aghast that an Aussie won the event. They would have preferred a guy by name of Buckwheat from Southern Missisipi to have caprured the title. Crooked cards and decks and dealers are not out of the question to give American-born big and beefy MilWaukee Light Beer drinking men with fancy names and sexy backgrounds an edge in the next world series.

4. You are right. $7.5 million is a piddly sum. Dubya is upset at this as well. Having figured the time to catch Osama has slipped by Dubya is considering moving the $25 million sum to be awarded to the next WSOP champ.

5. The Jihadists in the middle east have a new plot. If Ahmed Akbar from Palestine can win this thing they can show the world they ain't bluffing no more. Expect many sacrificing their stack for their good cause to give their team member an edge.

Any serious replys to this post will be ignored! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Mitch Evans]

Agreed. They need to get rid of flat payouts. My solution for next year is:

1st place: 57 Million
2nd place: Pistol

[JJJ88]

[ QUOTE ]
the pokerstars factor:
no champ will probably = less seats awarded by them next year


[/ QUOTE ]

Who award seats to Pokerstars?
Pokerstars seats are seats won by pokerstars players via their satelite games.
We see traffics for tournament play jumped at Pokerstars since WSOP 2005. So Pokerstars will send more players next year. Pokerstars runs an awsome site.

[GrannyMae]

Pokerstars runs an awsome site.

i agree 100%! this had nothing to do with stars quality.

i have stayed out of this thread for a couple of days because rational comments by others and factors relating to my personal situation that cloudied the waters swayed my opinion.

however, stars can send more or less if they choose. yes, the players fund the events. but all stars has to do is tweak the events offered and they could easily send many more (or many less).

this is all i meant by the pokerstars factor.

[Dynasty]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/DynastyPoker/bump2sign35.gif (and suggest this get moved to the WSOP forum)

Quite a few people besides Granny thought the WSOP had peaked in 2005. There were hardly any people saying Harrah's would reach it's 8,000 player cap or break it.

Poker still has LOTS of room to grow. It's still a very small game compared to other casino games and miniscule compared to other hobbies/recreational activities.

[GrannyMae]

wow. i don't even remember writing this.

oh well, never mind. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/DynastyPoker/bump2sign35.gif (and suggest this get moved to the WSOP forum)

Quite a few people besides Granny thought the WSOP had peaked in 2005. There were hardly any people saying Harrah's would reach it's 8,000 player cap or break it.

Poker still has LOTS of room to grow. It's still a very small game compared to other casino games and miniscule compared to other hobbies/recreational activities.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very true.
I'm impressed that it grew so much more this year (I was expecting just slight growth).

Assuming no interference from congress (fingers-crosses) I don't think that 10k next year is too unrealistic.

10-freaking-k?!?! Wow.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
10-freaking-k?!?! Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

$100,000,000 prize pool is probably larger than the GDP of some small countries.

[Nick-Zack]

[ QUOTE ]

i think my biggest problem was having only 20% of myself. this may sound stupid, but had i won $100k, i would have been unhappy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every time I read you whining about this I remember that I will never back another player like we did you.

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i think my biggest problem was having only 20% of myself. this may sound stupid, but had i won $100k, i would have been unhappy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every time I read you whining about this I remember that I will never back another player like we did you.

[/ QUOTE ]


you still smarting over that $40? if it would help you that much, i'll be happy to send you back $5.

also, do you realize you are responding to a post that is a year old?

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i think my biggest problem was having only 20% of myself. this may sound stupid, but had i won $100k, i would have been unhappy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every time I read you whining about this I remember that I will never back another player like we did you.

[/ QUOTE ]


you still smarting over that $40? if it would help you that much, i'll be happy to send you back $5.

also, do you realize you are responding to a post that is a year old?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, are you playing this year? and if you are do you have at least 80 percent of yourself?

Good luck if you are playing!

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i think my biggest problem was having only 20% of myself. this may sound stupid, but had i won $100k, i would have been unhappy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every time I read you whining about this I remember that I will never back another player like we did you.

[/ QUOTE ]


you still smarting over that $40? if it would help you that much, i'll be happy to send you back $5.

also, do you realize you are responding to a post that is a year old?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, are you playing this year? and if you are do you have at least 80 percent of yourself?

Good luck if you are playing!

[/ QUOTE ]


decided not to play actually.

side games and slots are my life for next 10 days. trip going very well, and i don't want to be locked into that mess. i have zero chance of winning, and i'm already WAY ahead of a low level cash.

am i a wuss? i guess, but i am having a blast. will play in the last 2 events probably.

[kemystery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Amir Vahedi and Sammy Farha were no names in 2003?
Did anyone know Farha or Vahedi before 2003? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anyone know about tournament poker before Moneymaker won in 2003? No.

[/ QUOTE ]