Negreanu's proposed 2007 WSOP sched

[KneeCo]

Please lock with my apologies if it's been posted.

From his blog, he also talks about it in his video blog.

[ QUOTE ]
Proposed 2007 WSOP Schedule

Without further adieu, here is what I would propose:



Day # Buyin Game (Noon) Time Buyin Game
1 $1,500.00 No Limit Hold'em
2 $1,500.00 7 Card Stud 3:00 PM $2,000.00 H.O.R.S.E (super satellite)
3 $2,500.00 No Limit Hold'em 3:00 PM $2,000.00 H.O.R.S.E (super satellite)
4 $2,500.00 H.O.R.S.E 5:00 PM $2,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (super satellite)
5 $2,500.00 Limit Hold'em 3:00 PM $2,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (super satellite)
6 $2,000.00 Omaha Hi-Lo 3:00 PM $2,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (super satellite)
7 $50,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (Day 1) 2:00 PM $1,500.00 Pot Limit Hold'em
8 $50,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (Day 2) 2:00 PM $1,500.00 Limit Hold'em
9 $50,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (Day 3) 2:00 PM $1,500.00 Omaha Hi-Lo
10 $50,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (Day 4) 2:00 PM $2,000.00 No Limit Hold'em
11 $50,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (Day 5) 2:00 PM $1,500.00 Pot Limit Omaha (rebuys)
12 $50,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (Day 6) 2:00 PM $5,000.00 Pot Limit Hold'em
13 $2,000.00 7 Card Stud Hi-Lo
14 $2,500.00 No Limit Hold'em (short)
15 $2,500.00 7 Card Stud
16 $2,500.00 Pot Limit Omaha (rebuys) 2:00 PM $1,500.00 Ladies No Limit Hold'em
17 $25,000.00 Gold Bracelet Heads Up Event 2:00 PM $5,000.00 Non Bracelelt Heads Up Event (3 day events) 128=2 matches day one, 3 day 2, 2 day 3
18 $2,000.00 Pot Limit Hold'em
19 $5,000.00 Omaha Hi-Lo
20 $5,000.00 No Limit Hold'em
21 $2,500.00 7 Card Stud Hi-Lo
22 $2,000.00 Limit Hold'em (shootout) 2:00 PM $1,500 Seniors No Limit Hold'em
23 $5,000.00 No Limit Hold'em
24 $2,000.00 Limit Hold'em
25 $2,000.00 No Limit Hold'em (shootout)
26 $5,000.00 7 Card Stud Hi-Lo
27 $3,000.00 Limit Hold'em (short) 4:00 PM $5,000.00 2-7 NL SIngle Draw
28 $3,000.00 Omaha Hi-Lo
29 $3,000.00 Pot Limit Hold'em 4:00 PM $2,000.00 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball
30 $5,000.00 7 Card Stud
31 $1,000.00 No Limit Hold'em (rebuys)
32 $10,000.00 Pot Limit Omaha
33 $5,000.00 No Limit Hold'em (short) 4:00 PM $3,000.00 Razz
34 $5,000.00 H.O.R.S.E
35 $5,000.00 Limit Hold'em
36 $10,000.00 No Limit Hold'em Main Event
The schedule consists of the following:

10 NLH
6 LH
4 PLH
3 Stud
3 Stud 8
4 Omaha 8
3 PLO
3 HORSE
1 Razz
2 Draw
2 special
2 heads up

There may be one event that you are curious about, the heads up events. Here is what I propose:

A $25,000 buy in no limit hold'em heads up tournament for bracelet winners ONLY. It would likely be a three day event, playing two matches the first day, two matches the second day, and two matches on the final day (based on a 64 player field). If it were a 128 player field, 3 matches would be played on day two.

On that same very day, we'd hold another heads up no limit hold'em tournament with a $5000 buy in. In this event, ONLY those who have NOT won a WSOP bracelet may enter!

Obviously because of the buy in the structure for the $25,000 event should have more play, so here is what I propose:

$5000 Heads Up: 60 minute levels 5000 in chips
50-100
100-200
150-300
200-400
300-600

Getting to level five would be a marathon match. If you were to play for four hours and still have no winner, obviously the blinds would now be a major factor but the thing has to end sometime!

$25,000 Heads Up: 25,000 in chips 60 minute levels
100-200
150-300
200-400
300-600
400-800
500-1000
600-1200
800-1600
1000-2000

If a match were to be a marathon, reaching level 9, the blinds would surely come into play and end it then since the average stack would have just 12.5 big bets by then. Level 9 would only come into play in the most extreme cases IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Quicksilvre]

I like it, but I don't see why the HORSE event should be six days long. Five would be just fine, and four would have covered it this year. Also, I don't think there's enough demand to justify three HORSE and three Stud8 events. I'd drop one Stud8 and replace one HORSE event with a half-Stud half-Hold'em event. I'd also add another PLO event.

[NickMPK]

I don't see how you could have a heads-up event open to the public. It would just require too many dealers and tables.

Also, three days for HORSE was too few, but six seems a little excessive. Four days seems like it should be enough, five at most. But what do I care...not like I'm ever going to be entering that one.

Finally, is it really smart to be starting events a day before the main event? It would be kind of unfair to players who were signed up for the first day of the main event.

[Kevmath]

I think 128 was also the limit for the 5k headsup event. Also, isn't 60 minutes a bit too long for headsup? The Headsup event that aired on NBC had 12 minute levels. Wouldn't 30 be a reasonable compromise? Daniel seems to have forgot to include the Casino Employee event also.

[Ignignokt]

[ QUOTE ]
Without further adieu

[/ QUOTE ]

I know he's Canadian, but that's no excuse.

And I'd move the big HORSE game to day 1 or 2, like the big kickoff to the event.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
I think 128 was also the limit for the 5k headsup event. Also, isn't 60 minutes a bit too long for headsup? The Headsup event that aired on NBC had 12 minute levels. Wouldn't 30 be a reasonable compromise? Daniel seems to have forgot to include the Casino Employee event also.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you determine which players got to enter the event? Just who signed up first? This doesn't really seem fair. And I don't see the casinos willing to use up most of their tournament space for most of a day to accomodate just 128 players. Also, heads-up tournament just don't seem like a very good format logistically; you'd have a whole lot of players waiting around for hours for the last match of a round to end.

I like the idea of a heads-up tournament, but I don't think it can work realistically at the WSOP except as a sponsored event like the Tournament of Champions.

[Alan Goehring]

A heads-up event is an interesting idea.

However, to have a "bracelet winners only" event is a bad idea. Many of the very best heads-up players are young internet players (many from Europe, and a young guy from Norway may be the best) that may very well not have won a bracelet. So we should exclude those guys but allow someone who won a bracelet in omaha 8 or a stud event to play --- doesn't make much sense. Maybe he is trying to create a more mediocre field to try and give himself an advantage, but I believe it would be better to have a world class field.

The size of the field can be limited by simply adjusting the buy-in, I don't know if that would be $20k, $30k or $50k (depends how small you wanted it). I don't think the field size should be limited to an exact number (only an even number). For example, if 84 players signed-up, 40 people would play round one and 44 would get a bye (people playing round one would get half their entry fee refunded----and would be chosen among people that elected to play the first round for half price, e.g. if 50 people want to play round one, draw 40 from that pool at random, if 30 people wanted round one then those 30 plus 10 at random from the remaining players).

I also think the blind structure proposal is not good. Starting should be at least 150-200x BB (the levels could be 45 minutes if needed, but I like 60 minutes). The proposal to start a $5k HU at 50x BB is crazy, most of the play is out of the game on the very first level of play!

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, if 84 players signed-up, 40 people would play round one and 44 would get a bye (people playing round one would get half their entry fee refunded----and would be chosen among people that elected to play the first round for half price, e.g. if 50 people want to play round one, draw 40 from that pool at random, if 30 people wanted round one then those 30 plus 10 at random from the remaining players).

[/ QUOTE ]

I LOVE this idea. I didn't even think of halving the buy-ins for players who had to do an extra round.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think the blind structure proposal is not good. Starting should be at least 150-200x BB (the levels could be 45 minutes if needed, but I like 60 minutes). The proposal to start a $5k HU at 50x BB is crazy, most of the play is out of the game on the very first level of play!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't they start with the same number of BBs at the start of every round? If that were the case, I don't think that 200 is necessary, but 100 would be nice.

[gilbert]

At least he put a $2k tdl event in there.

[Kevmath]

The NBC tournament (http://www.nbcheadsup.com/rules.html) seemed to have a reasonable amount of BB's, although the levels are way too short.

Maybe Daniel would consider those Internet pros as further "watering down" of the WSOP.

The WSOP had a headsup tournament for bracelet winners only was back in 2002 (I don't know if there were earlier ones). 29 signed up at $2,500 each. The finals were a classic matchup (http://www.seiyuu.com/okamoto/poker/wsop2002/final-99.htm) between Hellmuth and Chan.

[betgo]

The ideas about having a high buyin HU tournament or any HU tournament and HORSE tournaments without huge buyins are good.

The reality is that they are going to keep running a lot of relatively low buyin NLHE tournaments, because that is what gets the big turnouts. These attract casual players and the weak fields attract pro and semipro players.

[Alan Goehring]

[ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't they start with the same number of BBs at the start of every round? If that were the case, I don't think that 200 is necessary, but 100 would be nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

DN had proposed two events with two different blind structures.

"Personally" I like 200x BB a lot more than
100x BB.

[Alan Goehring]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe Daniel would consider those Internet pros as further "watering down" of the WSOP.


[/ QUOTE ]

Scandinavian players (and even Amercian players in their twenties) who show up with $50k and are ready to play are likely SIGNIFICANTLY better as a group than bracelet holders. If he thought otherwise (which I doubt), he would be mistaken.

If by "watering down" you mean we should have events for more well known players (like NBC HU) rather than the best players, then you could be right. I just think the WSOP should be about the best.

[Kevmath]

I take the "watering down" comment from this quote on his message board (http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=67421&st=0&p=1229926&#entry122 9926) regarding this year's schedule. [ QUOTE ]

The WSOP schedule is so terrible this year that the value of these bracelets has been watered down so much the "prestige" just isn't quite there.

[/ QUOTE ]

[two0crew]

It doesnt refer to who is playing (internet players), just that there are so many events, mostly being low buy in NL.

[Clowny]

Damn "no name" players winning braclets, I'd rather see the same bunch of 20 players win every event at the WSOP every year because that would just be so much more fun. It doesnt matter that they are not taking on all comers and just playing amongst themsselves they are the best because they won an event before poker was popular.

I believe Professor Frinks Sarcasm detector exploded rather early on in that statement.

[kb09pkt]

I like the idea of making the WSOP more a well rounded event. From a business standpoint, it makes more sense to make it the World Series of Hold'em. More people enter, more juice collected for the house. However, from a poker players standpoint, a wider variety of events does add more prestige to winning the bracelets. I would love to see them add Chinese Poker back into the Series again and definetly add more PLO since that appears to be the game of the future. I love Hold'em, but get tired of seeing nothing but that everyday.

[Alan Goehring]

[ QUOTE ]
I take the "watering down" comment from this quote on his message board (http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=67421&st=0&p=1229926&#entry122 9926) regarding this year's schedule. [ QUOTE ]

The WSOP schedule is so terrible this year that the value of these bracelets has been watered down so much the "prestige" just isn't quite there.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was talking about the large number of bracelets awarded, and more specifically about the proliferation (duplicatation) of "low buy-in NLH" events, at least thats the impression I got when I spoke to him.

Do we really need three $1.5k NLH, three $2k NLH events, or three $1k NLH events? These events, with 2000+ players (some of who satelite in for approx $200) and associated low quality blind structures, are becoming more like the main event---more of a "lottery" luck contest than a true test of skill. I agree with DN on this point (which is why I played none of the eleven NLH & PLH events with sub $2500 buy-ins).

Clearly the vast majority of players in these low buy-in NLH events are not going to play a $25k or $50k heads-up event, so I don't think his comment would apply to my proposal.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the idea of making the WSOP more a well rounded event. From a business standpoint, it makes more sense to make it the World Series of Hold'em. More people enter, more juice collected for the house. However, from a poker players standpoint, a wider variety of events does add more prestige to winning the bracelets. I would love to see them add Chinese Poker back into the Series again and definetly add more PLO since that appears to be the game of the future. I love Hold'em, but get tired of seeing nothing but that everyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with adding more PLO and other games, but Chinese Poker isn't poker....its just happens to use poker hand rankings. Why not add a blackjack event too?

[52s]

Just after a quikc cursory glance at his proposed schedule:

A) If the NBC Heads-Up Championship stays at Caesars, there is ZERO CHANCE, NONE WHATSOEVER, that Harrah's will trample on their #2 Poker Commodity, one with a network contract to boot, to have a similar event at the WSOP, one that would be a logistical nightmare to hold. Not happening. No way. He's off his rocker.

B) He's getting greedy by setting the baseline entries at $2k for open events and $1.5 for the closed events (forgetting the casino employees in the process). Do note his 1.5k tournies all pretty much occur during the 50k HORSE event, except for the opening 1.5 NLHE tourney (I'll get to that in a sec). Trying to get rid of 1500 events will get rid of a ton of the casual players who want to take a shot. 1500, psychologically, is a lot less to swallow than 2000... yunno, the whole $3.99 v. $4.00 thing.

C) Back to the opening 1500 NLHE event... you follow that with 1500 Stud? What? Harrah's got [censored] for this year's sched, and rightfully so, but starting off with the triad of 1500 NLHE, 1500 PLHE, and 1500 LHE was a brilliant idea that needs to be kept. They have all the HE players in-house with the NLHE, now you want to keep them around for another 2 days.

More later when I break this down.

[Yuv]

Thumbs up to Alan for recognizing bad_ip's pwnage. Didn't think big time pros knew who he was.

[52s]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he was talking about the large number of bracelets awarded, and more specifically about the proliferation (duplicatation) of "low buy-in NLH" events, at least thats the impression I got when I spoke to him.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wrote a quick blurb about his on DN's board while putting up a mock schedule of my own.

I compared it to the NHL awarding a Stanley Cup to the Edmonton Oilers as well as the Carolina Hurricanes... my preference being that there be one "$1,500 NLH Champion" in one year, not three.

Be that as it may, practically obliterating all 1500 events (except those he put in during the 50k HORSE event) and basically setting the baseline at 2k isn't the way to go.

[Alan Goehring]

[ QUOTE ]
Just after a quikc cursory glance at his proposed schedule:

A) If the NBC Heads-Up Championship stays at Caesars, there is ZERO CHANCE, NONE WHATSOEVER, that Harrah's will trample on their #2 Poker Commodity, one with a network contract to boot, to have a similar event at the WSOP, one that would be a logistical nightmare to hold. Not happening. No way. He's off his rocker.

B) He's getting greedy by setting the baseline entries at $2k for open events and $1.5 for the closed events (forgetting the casino employees in the process). Do note his 1.5k tournies all pretty much occur during the 50k HORSE event, except for the opening 1.5 NLHE tourney (I'll get to that in a sec). Trying to get rid of 1500 events will get rid of a ton of the casual players who want to take a shot. 1500, psychologically, is a lot less to swallow than 2000... yunno, the whole $3.99 v. $4.00 thing.

C) Back to the opening 1500 NLHE event... you follow that with 1500 Stud? What? Harrah's got [censored] for this year's sched, and rightfully so, but starting off with the triad of 1500 NLHE, 1500 PLHE, and 1500 LHE was a brilliant idea that needs to be kept. They have all the HE players in-house with the NLHE, now you want to keep them around for another 2 days.

More later when I break this down.

[/ QUOTE ]


A. Good point, you are probably right.

B. Disagree. I don't think he went far enough. There is no need for a $1.5k NLH freeze out event next year---this year these events got 2126-2776 players, this stuff with alternates and/or 11 handed is B.S. If there were no $1.5k NLH this year, the $2.0k NLH would have got about 2000 players (instead of 1579-1919), as some "one-timers" (and assorted others) would have simply moved up. Not-withstanding a government crackdown on online poker, the fields will likely be even larger next year.

C. I agree.

Two out of three ain't bad.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I take the "watering down" comment from this quote on his message board (http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=67421&st=0&p=1229926&#entry122 9926) regarding this year's schedule. [ QUOTE ]

The WSOP schedule is so terrible this year that the value of these bracelets has been watered down so much the "prestige" just isn't quite there.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was talking about the large number of bracelets awarded, and more specifically about the proliferation (duplicatation) of "low buy-in NLH" events, at least thats the impression I got when I spoke to him.

Do we really need three $1.5k NLH, three $2k NLH events, or three $1k NLH events? These events, with 2000+ players (some of who satelite in for approx $200) and associated low quality blind structures, are becoming more like the main event---more of a "lottery" luck contest than a true test of skill. I agree with DN on this point (which is why I played none of the eleven NLH & PLH events with sub $2500 buy-ins).

Clearly the vast majority of players in these low buy-in NLH events are not going to play a $25k or $50k heads-up event, so I don't think his comment would apply to my proposal.

[/ QUOTE ]

An added viewpoint:
The current number of poker players, especially holdem players, is huge compared to the number that played even 3 years ago. While the number of bracelets has grown with emphasis on holdem, the percentage of overall players receiving them has decreased. Though the structures make them more of a 'luckboxing' even than I would prefer, I do not think the number of bracelets being handed out really cheapens them.

I liken it to professional football and baseball adding wild card teams and whatnot. There has been so much expansion that lesser accomplishments do deserve positive feedback.

Everyone still recognizes the larger buyin events hold more prestige. Handing out a half-donzen $1500 NLH bracelets doesn't cheapen that at all and acknowledges many worthy players.

IMO, there are a truckload of players who are bracelet worthy now, and I see no issue with a few more opportunities.
Just look at the final tables and winners of these events. There are numerous solid players getting there whether the public recognizes them or not.


Damn, this post started off nice and succinct, but I lost where I was going somewhere in there.

summary
1) many more players out there now than in the past, especially holdem
2) final tables and bracelet winners have been some solid players this year, whether the general public knows them or not
3) players still recognize which events hold more prestige
4) overall, the bracelet prestige is still on firm ground

[52s]

To make things simpler, here's his proposed schedule written out by game:

NLHE - 1500, 2000, 2500, 5000, 5000 (yep, two of them), 1000 (rebuys), 2500 (6-handed), 5000 (6-handed), 2000 (shootout), 10k (Main Event)
LHE - 1500, 2000, 2500, 5000, 3000 (6-handed), 2000 (shootout)
PLHE - 1500, 2000, 3000, 5000
Stud - 1500, 2500, 5000
Stud/8 - 2000, 2500, 5000
PLO - 1500 (rebuys), 2500 (rebuys), 10000
Omaha/8 - 1500, 2000, 3000, 5000
Razz - 3000
2-7 TD - 2000
2-7 Draw NL - 5000
HORSE - 2500, 5000, 50k
Closed Events - Ladies' and Seniors' 1500

And the HU thing I won't bring up again, cause as I already posted, if the NBC HU is staying at Caesars, Harrah's will laugh at him for wanting to dump on their #2 poker commodity, among other things.

[ QUOTE ]
20 $5,000.00 No Limit Hold'em
23 $5,000.00 No Limit Hold'em


[/ QUOTE ]

- I will presume he meant 3000 for one of these. If by some chance he didn't, then talking about having duplicate 1500 events while trying to put in duplicate 5k events holds no water.

[ QUOTE ]
1 $1,500.00 No Limit Hold'em
2 $1,500.00 7 Card Stud

[/ QUOTE ]

- Again repeating myself from earlier reply... you have all the HE junkies in-house for the 1500 NLHE. If they bust out Day 1 you want to hold onto their action for a couple more days, and that happens the easiest and best by having the 1500 PLHE and 1500 LHE the next two days. Harrah's did right here, no need for a change.

[ QUOTE ]
22 $2,000.00 Limit Hold'em (shootout)
25 $2,000.00 No Limit Hold'em (shootout)


[/ QUOTE ]

- I see he wants to make the shootouts 2000. That's fine, I guess, if only for the shootouts. But he tried to bump up a few other things to 2000 where it's detrimental.

[ QUOTE ]
Stud - 1500, 2500, 5000
Stud/8 - 2000, 2500, 5000
Razz - 3000
2-7 TD - 2000


[/ QUOTE ]

- Yes, quoting myself. What makes Stud/8 so special that's it "entry level" tourney is 2000, while Stud is 1500? 1500 Razz barely gets people, and there's Razz in the HORSE, why bump it to 3000? Why 2-7 at 2000?

Again, the "entry level" tourneys should be kept in uniform amounts. It could be the OCD in me wanting everything straight-forward, but if NLHE "entry level" is 1500, 2-7 "entry level" should be 1500 as well. As I suggested somewhere else, a 1500 and 5000 2-7 TD seems reasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
PLO - 1500 (rebuys), 2500 (rebuys), 10000
Omaha/8 - 1500, 2000, 3000, 5000


[/ QUOTE ]

- Quoting myself again for clarity's sake. Why in the hell is there more Omaha/8 than PLO? A new game needs to take hold of the poker masses by the throat and to be pushed as the "next big action game" - I strongly believe this, as does everyone sick of HE - and PLO is the pretty clear answer to me.

With that, having PLO w/ rebuys at 1500 and 2500 would completely kill any interest of any newbies wanting to give a PLO tourney a shot. Again, a 1500 "entry level" tourney works wonders. Make the rebuys 1000 for ease (and to coincide with the NLHE 1000 rebuy), make the 2500 a freezeout as well. If he wants a high-limit rebuy shootout, bring back the 5k w/rebuys. And keep the 10k championship.

The 4 Omaha/8 tournies... again, Omaha/8 is in the HORSE. Why 2000 and 3000, make it one 2500 instead.

[ QUOTE ]
7 $50,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (Day 1) 2:00 PM $1,500.00 Pot Limit Hold'em
16 $2,500.00 Pot Limit Omaha (rebuys) 2:00 PM $1,500.00 Ladies No Limit Hold'em


[/ QUOTE ]

- This is horrible scheduling from a media standpoint, IMO.

I want to make a big spectacle of the 50k HORSE event... what better than to have the 1k (not 1.5, that's too much) Ladies' Event starting the same day? Get the media in there and have at it, pokerwebsiteexclusivecoverage be damned. Make a big spectacle of the room with all the women and big rollers.

In a lesser vein, put a big buy-in event (proposing the 10k PLO) to start the same day as the 1k (again, 1.5 is too much) Seniors' Events. Again, make it a spectacle... all the seniors and this hot new game getting a strong push, Pot Limit Omaha, with its best playing in the tourney.

Harrah's had the PLO 10k with the Ladies this year, and Seniors with the 50k HORSE... all they need to do is flip the big buy-in events around and unlock the pokerwebsiteexclusivecoveragebyinterns and let everyone document the spectacle.

[ QUOTE ]
4 $2,500.00 H.O.R.S.E 5:00 PM $2,000.00 H.O.R.S.E. (super satellite)


[/ QUOTE ]

- And DN's the one who complained about the piggy-backing of the 3k LHE and Omaha/8 events?

[ QUOTE ]
27 $3,000.00 Limit Hold'em (short)
29 $3,000.00 Pot Limit Hold'em

[/ QUOTE ]

- Preference is 2500 to keep buy-ins streamlined.

[ QUOTE ]
HORSE - 2500, 5000, 50k


[/ QUOTE ]

- I'd take the HORSE one year at a time. Bring the 2500 in for 2007, yeah. See how that rolls, then test 5000 for 2008.

- And finally, a 1k Casino Employees' Event.

Some good, some bad.

DN is catering to the bigger rolled crowd, but forgets in places that to Harrah's its all about bringing the people in, and those small buy-in tournies are the bread and butter.

I know he wants the "prestige" back, but it shouldn't be done by jacking up the buy-in amounts, it needs to be done by killing the duplicate events.

[52s]

[ QUOTE ]
B. Disagree. I don't think he went far enough. There is no need for a $1.5k NLH freeze out event next year---this year these events got 2126-2776 players, this stuff with alternates and/or 11 handed is B.S. If there were no $1.5k NLH this year, the $2.0k NLH would have got about 2000 players (instead of 1579-1919), as some "one-timers" (and assorted others) would have simply moved up. Not-withstanding a government crackdown on online poker, the fields will likely be even larger next year.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the 11-handed play and alternates thing needs to be shut down or drastically fixed, I agree, and that's another subject for another time, but the other problem this year was that there were *3* $1.5k NLHE freezeouts, sprinkled throughout the schedule.

If people know there's only the one 1.5k NLHE event at the start of the WSOP, they'll crash the place and turn it into a zoo for the one day... and then that'll be it.

The people who couldn't make it, but still want to play an event? They'll move up to the 2k event.

[NickMPK]

I thought that Daniel put a 2.5K HOSE event on the schedule, but maybe he changed it before he made this post. I also assume that one of those 5000 NLHEs is supposed to be 3000.

I agree with the other posters that all games should have a 1.5K event, except those games with just one event, and they should keep the NLHE, PLHE, LHE starting sequence intact.

The most important thing they can do is to get rid of some of the low-buy in hold-em events. The should be no 1K open events, other than the rebuy, and no duplicates. Eventually, they can put some higher buy-in events in their place. And while its fine to hold event that start during the WSOP, they should not award bracelets (actually I'm not sure if they do now or not).

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

And the HU thing I won't bring up again, cause as I already posted, if the NBC HU is staying at Caesars, Harrah's will laugh at him for wanting to dump on their #2 poker commodity, among other things.


[/ QUOTE ]

Harrahs doesn't own the Head-up Championship. It was created by NBC. So, it's not their commodity to dump on. Unless they have a long term contract with Harrahs, I'm sure NBC could take their tournament (programming) anywhere they want.

Besides, creating a WSOP heads-up tournament wouldn't be dumping on it anyway.

[WSOPChump]

Danny and alot of the old school guys want the WSOP to be like it was in the past and its just never going to be.
The casual players and the internet players just dont play stud anymore. Hence, the opening week should be a bunch of 2K hold'em events. I kind of liked the carnival atmosphere. Than again im only there a week and its a vacation. I would assume the majority of attendeees like the hold'em and Harras likes it just as much because of the profits.

Yeah, I think Harrahs should give a little back to the traditionalist. But mostly it probably should be done in adding some 2 pm start events like 5K stud H/L etc.

Alan is very correct on the 1500 events. The ideal number for harrah's and the players is probably 2000 people. If they keep the 1500 NL events people are going to get turned away or they are going to have to go 12 handed. Hence, probably upping the minimum buy in on NL events to 2K is necessary.

[aramfingal]

[ QUOTE ]
- Quoting myself again for clarity's sake. Why in the hell is there more Omaha/8 than PLO? A new game needs to take hold of the poker masses by the throat and to be pushed as the "next big action game" - I strongly believe this, as does everyone sick of HE - and PLO is the pretty clear answer to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
o8 and plo8 already dwarf plo in terms of number of people playing on-line (where the masses are). its not even close. on the medium sized sites its hard to even get a plo sng going. and when you do finally get one going, after the first hand you can count on 2 or 3 ppl saying, "what? this isn't h/l? i joined the wrong game." its different on the europe only sites of course. but it would be very nice if in a few years there were 5 plo and 10 o8 tournies in the wsop.

[52s]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrahs doesn't own the Head-up Championship. It was created by NBC. So, it's not their commodity to dump on. Unless they have a long term contract with Harrahs, I'm sure NBC could take their tournament (programming) anywhere they want.

Besides, creating a WSOP heads-up tournament wouldn't be dumping on it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thinking is that Harrahs would want to maintain the relationship with NBC in having the Heads-Up Championship played and kept at Caesars.

I don't know the details either on where the NBC HU will be next year, I'm just presuming NBC would want to do the same and keep the NBC HU at one casino instead of having it jump around Vegas.

And if the NBC HU were to stay with Harrahs, I'm sure NBC would want it to be known that their's is THE HU Championship in poker, and they may take it as an insult that Harrahs is holding a HU tourney at the WSOP as well. Sounds stupid, but you never know.

Even if the NBC HU moves out of Caesars and away from Harrahs, holding a HU tournament at the WSOP would be a nightmare.

Where do you cap the entries at? 128? 256? 512?

What do you do if you don't have enough entries to fill out a full bracket?

You think Harry D. flipping out at the shootout starting 6-handed was bad?

Imagine the uproar over people getting byes, halved buy-ins be damned. (I know byes may happen online alot, but with this being the WSOP, with the "prestige" and all that, everyone would be angling for a bye if they dared make it available, and cause a ruckus.)

How quick must the blinds go? Using DN's blinds with 128 (7 rounds), 256 (8), or 512 (9) means potential 12-15 hour days, alot of which would be spent by advancing players shambling about the WSOP needlessly waiting for their next match, in extreme cases as long as 3-4 hours a shot.

It's just something that may be best avoided.

[Mike Jett]

The lack of common sense in this thread makes it esaier to understand why the people that are in fact in charge screw it up so bad.

just wow.

[FCBLComish]

Hey, Where is the Casino Employees Event???

[octoinky]

Something I would like to see is more "championship" events. We seem to have a PLO $10k championship event, a NLHE Championship and a HORSE Championship. Then, the less popular games seem to die off, into $5k events like stud, and LHE. It wouldn't be as good for harrahs, but a 10k in stud, 10k (or more) in LHE, etc., would create more prestigious bracelets. Then continue to toss in a smaller number of $1500-$3000, maybe a few $5k events as well for casual bracelet contenders as well.

[marchron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrahs doesn't own the Head-up Championship. It was created by NBC. So, it's not their commodity to dump on. Unless they have a long term contract with Harrahs, I'm sure NBC could take their tournament (programming) anywhere they want.

Besides, creating a WSOP heads-up tournament wouldn't be dumping on it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thinking is that Harrahs would want to maintain the relationship with NBC in having the Heads-Up Championship played and kept at Caesars.

I don't know the details either on where the NBC HU will be next year, I'm just presuming NBC would want to do the same and keep the NBC HU at one casino instead of having it jump around Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]
The first NBC HU was at the Golden Nugget. Given that it's called the "National Heads-Up Poker Championship," I presume they will be moving it around. They might center it in Vegas most of the time, but they could play it at Commerce or Foxwoods occasionally.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
its different on the europe only sites of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right--that's why there ought to be more than just three PLO events, if we're going to have a World Series of Poker.

[*TT*]

Can I sign up for event #29 1 year in advance?

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[aramfingal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its different on the europe only sites of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right--that's why there ought to be more than just three PLO events, if we're going to have a World Series of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
totally agree, i was just saying that it is correct to have more o8 than plo.

[dlk9s]

He forgot to add a dealer's choice event.

[Jooka]

In DN's latest video blog he mentions that the low limit tournies bore him(so he then plays poorly) which might be a big reason why he is trying to up the price on most events.

[uter]

Here's a point i dont think anyone's made yet -

as long as the WSOP is owned by a corporation that cares a lot more about money than it does about poker, the only way for the pros to get what they want is for ALL OF THEM TO BOYCOTT IT. it seems pretty obvious that if there are no famous pros in the WSOP, everyone will stop caring.

ppl play for a bracelet because a bracelet has PRESTIGE.
that prestige is not defined by money, but by the fact that all the famous players want it so bad. when random nobody #1736 in a 1.5K NLHE event is able to win something that they know that Hellmuth, Negreanu etc. want so badly, that's why they're there!!!

THIS IS THE ONE THING THAT THE FAMOUS PROS ACTUALLY CAN CONTROL. if the pros stop caring about the bracelet, WSOP will lose most of its electricity, and harrah's will lose most of its leverage.

harrah's has, quite ingeniously, made a schedule in 2006 that is JUST enough other games and mid-high buy-ins to keep the pros feeling like its actually still the WSOP, but plenty of big cheap NLHE's for all that juice.
I suspect that the pros are well aware of everything i'm saying, but they just cant boycott because missing the WSOP every summer would be like not breathing for them. so i guess that by whining a lot, and DN proposing a schedule that Harrah's would laugh at, they figure they'll get Harrah's to maybe shift over a couple of inches.

as long as the pros keep coming, harrah's is NOT about to take measures that will drastically cut down their income in order to appease the pros who yearn for the days of yore.
I'm not talking about what SHOULD be, im talking reality.

Harrah's, in the immortal words of haralabous voulgaris, "collects money, b|tch."

[Lottery Larry]

I like a lot of the thought you've put into the various replies, except for this:

"I want to make a big spectacle of the 50k HORSE event... what better than to have the 1k (not 1.5, that's too much) Ladies' Event starting the same day? Get the media in there and have at it, pokerwebsiteexclusivecoverage be damned. Make a big spectacle of the room with all the women and big rollers."

That might be good for television, but I personally am waiting for one of two things:

a) We start a South-American event, a disabled veterans event, and a 22-and-under event.... among others.

OR

b) Drop the women's division. Poker is supposed to be a universal game- do we really need the separation still, to encourage participation?

I could see maintaining a seniors event, as the physical requirements in the tourneys now MIGHT play enough of a factor to have this separate event (and yet, look at Dan H and Doyle).

[Ekenstar]

Are all the omaha8 events limit? Why no pot limit Omaha8 events?

[aramfingal]

[ QUOTE ]

b) Drop the women's division. Poker is supposed to be a universal game- do we really need the separation still, to encourage participation?

[/ QUOTE ]
when we see women make up about approximately 50% of the field in every tourney, by all means its time to drop the event. until then, its a good idea to keep it on the schedule.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
it seems pretty obvious that if there are no famous pros in the WSOP, everyone will stop caring.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. Do you see why?

[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrahs doesn't own the Head-up Championship. It was created by NBC. So, it's not their commodity to dump on. Unless they have a long term contract with Harrahs, I'm sure NBC could take their tournament (programming) anywhere they want.

Besides, creating a WSOP heads-up tournament wouldn't be dumping on it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thinking is that Harrahs would want to maintain the relationship with NBC in having the Heads-Up Championship played and kept at Caesars.

I don't know the details either on where the NBC HU will be next year, I'm just presuming NBC would want to do the same and keep the NBC HU at one casino instead of having it jump around Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]
The first NBC HU was at the Golden Nugget. Given that it's called the "National Heads-Up Poker Championship," I presume they will be moving it around. They might center it in Vegas most of the time, but they could play it at Commerce or Foxwoods occasionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, then by that logic, the WORLD series of poker will probably be in Iraq next year.

NBC HU is at Caesear's next year.