Harrah's is diluting the WSOP brand - my proposal for the WSOP

[Self Made]

We talk about the WSOP producing a "world champion of poker" each year, but is Harrah's diluting the value of that championship?

A simple question for you: who is this year's world champion of poker? The guy who won the NL Hold'em bracelet? Which one? Harrah's handed out 25 bracelets in NL Hold'em this year! This includes events such as shootouts, short-handed, rebuy, ladies, seniors, and casino employees. What's next, Hold'em with jokers wild? And "championship" bracelets, which should be the highest honor in poker, were handed out for winning events with buyins as low as $1500.

I believe that as Harrah's hands out more bracelets, for more obscure niches of poker, the value of each bracelet goes down (those of you who understand economics will see that this is bracelet inflation).

If Harrah's wants to maximize the WSOP brand, and if all of us want the WSOP to be the true championship of poker, I propose that:
- there only be one championship event for each major type of poker; and
- each event be the highest-buyin event of its type in the world. For the Main Event, for example, that would mean a buyin in the $25,000-100,000 range.

I question if forms of poker like NL Hold'em shootouts need a championship event. If the WSOP is the shootout championship, where are the regular season and the playoffs? It's just not a major form of poker. NL Hold'em, pot limit Omaha, HORSE, etc. deserve championships, but some others on Harrah's current list should be cut out, and the total number of events should be drastically reduced.

- Self

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
A simple question for you: who is this year's world champion of poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple answer for you: Jamie Gold.

[UATrewqaz]

Harrah's has no interest in the "purity" of poker, only the almighty $$$.

Every decision Harrah's makes is to generate as much revenue as they think they possibly can.

[Self Made]

[ QUOTE ]
Every decision Harrah's makes is to generate as much revenue as they think they possibly can.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why are they diluting the brand? It's just a bad business decision in my opinion.

[Self Made]

[ QUOTE ]
A simple answer for you: Jamie Gold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who? Never heard of him. What's next, the Toronto Argonauts winning the Superbowl?

[kumarshah]

I don't think donkaments determine the "Best in Poker"

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think donkaments determine the "Best in Poker"

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody said they did.

[ericicecream]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A simple answer for you: Jamie Gold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who? Never heard of him. What's next, the Toronto Argonauts winning the Superbowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

He won this year. Get over it.

[DVaut1]

Harrah's/ESPN and the poker-industry as a whole has SO SUCCESSFULLY branded WSOP bracelets and WSOP events that they've convinced apparently thousands upon thousands of internet posters to waste their time theorizing on how to protect the value of those aforementioned bracelets.

The only reason you think this is true:

"And "championship" bracelets, which should be the highest honor in poker"

...is because you've internalized the branding and the Harrah's/ESPN narrative with regards to WSOP bracelets. So this OP and its many variant arguments seem to contradict themselves QED. WSOP bracelets are 'the highest honor in poker' because those who have historically awarded them have repeated it enough, and consumers have bought into the value proposition laid before them.

Of course, the highest honor in poker should go to the player who makes the most amount of money playing it. That some believe 'the highest honor in poker' belongs to the winner of some donkament seems to defy intuition, particularly because (and I would think 2p2ers would be especially aware of this) of the high variance involved in any tournament. That it has become a popular notion the 'highest honor' in a skill game should go to someone who necessarily had to be the beneficiary of huge amounts of good luck is paradoxical at best.

However, because of the growth of the ME and its accompanying prizepool, I would argue it's coming closer and closer (merely by getting larger and larger) to being the 'highest honor in poker' because the winner of the ME is likely coming closer and closer to making the most money playing the game that year, which, as most poker players should know, is the only criteria that ought to matter.

[RoundTower]

Actually, analysts have determined that nothing Harrah's have done has devalued the WSOP brand. Here's a chart from a respected economic think tank showing the value of the brand over the last 35 years:

http://gilly.homeip.net/~rt/harrahsvalue.jpg

[NickMPK]

I do think it was a mistake to award bracelets in $1000 events and consolation events. They should be increasing buy-ins rather than lowering them, if only to keep up with inflation.

But the WSOP had 30+ bracelet events long before Harrah's owned it. And Jaime Gold will be the undisputed "world champion of poker" among the general public as soon as his victory airs on TV.

[[Phill]]

Surely the most accurate measure of the 'champion' is the player of the year award.

Hence that Jeff Madsen kid is this years champ in my eyes, and rightly in anyone elses.

This measures skill across a series of tournament types, and means that you have to play well across more than a month rather than in just one tournament.

Note, im not a Gold hater or anything, i give credit for his amazing performance, but the points dont lie and that is what determines POTY.

[matt777]

Didn't PHil Hellmuth end up with more points that Jeff Madsen.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't PHil Hellmuth end up with more points that Jeff Madsen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anyone ever see an official POTY standings list? I know Cardplayer kept a list according to their way of counting points, but this is totally different from the official tally AFAIK.

[JuntMonkey]

I hate this line of thinking. We want more tournaments with more players because we want more $$. Who cares about Harrah's and the "brand"?

Walking into the Amazon Room one morning during the ME, some idiot says the typical "this is ridiculous, there's too many players, they need to raise the buy-in" thing. Meanwhile he's about to play in the most +EV tournament he'll ever play in.

[elliot]

[ QUOTE ]

I do think it was a mistake to award bracelets in $1000 events and consolation events.

[/ QUOTE ]

they didnt give bracelets in any of the "consolation" events, although they did in the events that started after the main event, which given the main events unpredictability makes perfect sense, jesus [censored] christ you people love to bitch.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
they didnt give bracelets in any of the "consolation" events, although they did in the events that started after the main event, which given the main events unpredictability makes perfect sense

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does that make perfect sense? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[elliot]

why should a tournament that starts after the main event be worth any less?

you NEED to keep extra dealers on hand due to the inherent unpredictability of the game, so why WOULDNT you run tournaments during the main event?

[Self Made]

I disagree with a few of the things said above.

Re RoundTower's comment ("nothing Harrah's have done has devalued the WSOP brand"): I just believe that Harrah's isn't maximizing the brand's potential. Growth in the WSOP doesn't provide evidence either way: the growth isn't due to Harrah's. It's present in the entire industry. It was under way before Harrah's bought the WSOP. ESPN, the WPT, and seemingly everyone else want to claim credit for the growth of poker. But the only thing that is actually responsible is Patent 5,451,054 (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-13,GGGL:en&q=Patent+5%2C451%2C054) (and to a lesser extent online poker). I'm just arguing my opinion here, that Harrah's isn't making the best of the WSOP, and that my proposal for it would increase both the popularity of poker and the value of the tournament to Harrah's.

Re JuntMonkey's comment "We want more tournaments with more players because we want more $$. Who cares about Harrah's and the "brand"?" The growth of poker as a whole is what creates a big school of fish. Do you see that Harrah's might create huge events with schools of fish at the WSOP while, at the same time, not maximizing poker's potential? We need for poker to be as popular as possible so that all of our games are juicy (not just the ones once a year at the WSOP). And Harrah's needs marketing for their brands and television/sponsorship revenue from the WSOP, not just an increase in their rake from a huge poker festival once a year.

DVaut1, the WSOP was the Superbowl of poker long before Harrah's took over. Even if that weren't true, I'd still argue that my proposal is the right way to maximize poker's popularity.

The fact is, in poker, golf, and every other sport ratings are higher when people can watch their heroes. Tiger in golf. Notre Dame in college football. But I saw the WSOP awarding 46 bracelets mostly to unknowns this year. We all have an interest in the best possible presentation of our sport to the public, the best possible poker broadcasts, and in maximizing poker's popularity. That's what brings in the fish for us. Fortunately, Harrah's and us have the same interest here.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just arguing my opinion here...

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are wrong. You have a lot of ideas but you are basically asking Harrah's to rip apart something that is working fine (at least in their eyes) and making millions for them and reshuffle the format in a way that could jeopardize their franchise. That is insane. They are looking to maximize their profit not to maximize the popularity of poker (which I don't believe your proposals would have any effect on).

Poker is not the same as golf, tennis and other sports. While stars do bring in fans, watching folks play poker for a big pile of money also works -- ESPN also uses the multiple pre-final-table episodes to build some of the players who you might not already know.

Relax. It ain't broke and it don't need to be fixed -- at least not in the radical way you suggest. Your "solution" would likely cost Harrah's millions.

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A simple answer for you: Jamie Gold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who? Never heard of him. What's next, the Toronto Argonauts winning the Superbowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you had already heard of Moneymaker, Raymer, or Hachem before they won?

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
We talk about the WSOP producing a "world champion of poker" each year, but is Harrah's diluting the value of that championship?

A simple question for you: who is this year's world champion of poker? The guy who won the NL Hold'em bracelet? Which one? Harrah's handed out 25 bracelets in NL Hold'em this year! This includes events such as shootouts, short-handed, rebuy, ladies, seniors, and casino employees. What's next, Hold'em with jokers wild? And "championship" bracelets, which should be the highest honor in poker, were handed out for winning events with buyins as low as $1500.

I believe that as Harrah's hands out more bracelets, for more obscure niches of poker, the value of each bracelet goes down (those of you who understand economics will see that this is bracelet inflation).

If Harrah's wants to maximize the WSOP brand, and if all of us want the WSOP to be the true championship of poker, I propose that:
- there only be one championship event for each major type of poker; and
- each event be the highest-buyin event of its type in the world. For the Main Event, for example, that would mean a buyin in the $25,000-100,000 range.

I question if forms of poker like NL Hold'em shootouts need a championship event. If the WSOP is the shootout championship, where are the regular season and the playoffs? It's just not a major form of poker. NL Hold'em, pot limit Omaha, HORSE, etc. deserve championships, but some others on Harrah's current list should be cut out, and the total number of events should be drastically reduced.

- Self

[/ QUOTE ]

Please move to New York.

[boc4life]

Here's what's amazing to me

People with these ideas want an elite, high buyin event where a "true world champion" can be named. They say this would increase the popularity of poker.

Ironically, the closest thing that exists to what these people want is Poker Superstars on FSN...Which as far as I know, doesn't really have a huge following, and wouldn't even if the structure was improved

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely the most accurate measure of the 'champion' is the player of the year award....the points dont lie and that is what determines POTY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is a dubious points system a better measure than $$$ won?

Look at Card Player's POTY standings (http://www.cardplayer.com/tournaments/poy). Why should John Hoang with $478,181 in winnings be ranked 6th when the 7-17th are have coniserably more $$$ won than him? 6 of those 11 players have won more than twice as many $$$. Players with bigger winnings than Hoang are ranked at least as low as 201st.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A simple answer for you: Jamie Gold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who? Never heard of him. What's next, the Toronto Argonauts winning the Superbowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you had already heard of Moneymaker, Raymer, or Hachem before they won?

[/ QUOTE ]

I had heard of Raymer.

[Self Made]

Well, at least I found one person (http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/bruce0906.html) that seems to agree with me:
Q: You've been quoted on a few occasions speaking of ways to improve poker as a whole. What are your suggestions, and how do you think they can be implemented?
A: ...Most importantly, though, we have to put a stop the dilution of the WSOP and other prestigious tournaments that are doing away with other forms of poker in favor of no limit hold'em. The WSOP schedule in 2006 was appalling in every way. More needs to be done to protect the history and integrity of the game. I mean, what's next? A $20 buy in no limit hold'em sit n' go for a bracelet next year? The buy ins are smaller now than they've ever been, and that only helps to weaken the brand.

[ruken]

I think one of you guys should tell Doyle Brunson that his $600 mixed doubles bracelet that he won with Starla Brodie is watered down and that it's diluting the brand.