WSOP ME 10G Buy-in Must be raised??

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt dare try and run off less experienced players. The entry fee hasnt changed in 34 years!!! I just believe its time that it do, isnt it?? Just to maintain the same prestige it had back then. Can we atleast agree that $10,000 doesnt go as far as it did in 1972. Thats all im saying. Prestige probably isnt the proper word but i hope you kinda get my drift.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally understand what you're saying. In 1972, the buy-in for the ME was much too high. Think about how much $10k was back then!

Therefore, I think the only fair solution is to create some kind of time traveling mechanism, which will enable us to travel back in time to 1972, and convince Benny Binion to lower the buy-in to something more palatable to adjust for inflation. I just believe that it's time we do this. Just to increase the prestige of those early events. Think about how much less prestigious those Main Event wins from the 1970s are -- the fields were so small compared to now! As we all know (or should know), variance can propel a bad player to a win in a smaller field much more easily than it can in a large field. Can we all at least agree the Main Event buy-in in 1972 was much too high?! That's all I'm saying. I hope you kinda get my drift.

I'll be starting the "The 1972 WSOP ME $10G Buy-in Must be Lowered??" thread momentarily.

[PITTM]

should be an intriguing thread with many new opinions...

rj

[AceLuby]

The big buy in event is the HORSE event (50k) had about 150 players, all pros, and is really the championship game for the pros. The ME isn't about the pros anymore, but I do think it should be in the range of 20-25k as opposed to 10k (the WPT has 10k events, if joe shmoe wants to play in a 10k event he can play there)

[Abones]

I have never heard anything about raising the buy-in great idea

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
Raising the buyin to weed out the donks is the tourney version of "I need to move up so they respect my raises!"

[/ QUOTE ]

[DesertCat]

The buyin must obviously be raised because the ME is struggling so badly.

Anyone who voted to raise the buyin should be required to play the $50k HORSE event next year. It will be nice to see their dead money donated to The Corporation.

[UATrewqaz]

I can understand the various arguments from the "keep it at 10K" crowd, but ya'll do realize that eventually it MUST change don't you?

The ME buy in is effectively going DOWN every year that inflation goes up, you do see this right?

10K in 1972 was more than 10K in 1992 which was more than it was in 2002, and so on.

While nobody supports adjusting it every year to meet inflation, eventually (next year, in 3 years, in 10 years, in X years) the buy in MUST be raised.

It's the "main" event for a reason and one of the most important of them is that the buy in is really big.

The argument of raising the buyin to specifically eliminate donks is of course stupid, this wouldn't be the reason to do it, however it might be a side effect (raising the buy in would not prevent any pros from playing, but would certainly cut the number of internet qualifiers).

However the prize pool would stay the same even if you cut the field in half (say from a doubled buy in to 20K)

The managability of the tournament is also an issue. A live B&M tournament (especially a deepstacked one like the ME) has physical boundaries associated with it.

There comes a point where the tournament would simply be unmanagable or take entierly too long (what if the tourney grows to 30K people, what type of nightmare would the logistics of that be)

[locutus2002]

I am looking forward to the spectacle of 50,000 players in a decade or so.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
The managability of the tournament is also an issue. A live B&M tournament (especially a deepstacked one like the ME) has physical boundaries associated with it.

There comes a point where the tournament would simply be unmanagable or take entierly too long (what if the tourney grows to 30K people, what type of nightmare would the logistics of that be)

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be the only reason you mention that would warrant a raise. You've given no other compelling reason, IMHO. So long as it is managable logistically, there is no reason why they NEED to chage it when it is generating the type of interest in generates, and produces 12 million+ winners.

As I have posted before, we have the perfect setting now ... the ME which is the public's perception of being important and makes for great television ("hey, did you see the guy who won $12 million bucks the other day"), and the HORSE event which has the buy-in you want which will limit the number of participants, and a structure that reduces the luck and rewards skill and diversity, and will more truly crown the annual champion of poker.

The comman man's champion will be the ME lottery winner, while the small group of "in the know" poker players will look to the HORSE winner as the true champion.

So, if 30,000 people @ $10K can be managed, let's have it. Imagine the publicity of a $40 million winner, with $24 million second place, and a final table, all of whom are guaranteed $4 million ... probably can't happen logistically, but if it could be, how cool would that be?

NCAces

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if 30,000 people @ $10K can be managed, let's have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
probably can't happen logistically

[/ QUOTE ]

30,000 entrants * $10,000 entry fee * 4% rake = $12 million dollars generated for Harrah's, not to mention plenty of branding value/free publicity/pedestrian traffic at the Rio/hotel rooms booked at the Rio and other Harrah's properties in Vegas...I suspect a company with HET's resources will find a way to handle the logistics of an event that will generate so much profit (in a way that satisfies the market, i.e., the players).

There's nothing that poor quality of play will do to make the spectacle of watching people play for 8 digit jackpots uninteresting -- that is, the profitability of the ME for Harrah's should correlate strongly with the size of the field and prizepool, and not the quality of play, meaning (I see) little to no incentive to raise the buy-in from Harrah's perspective.

The same crowd of players that are demanding a higher buy-in for the ME are intense poker fans/players that Harrah's knows will be trying to qualify/watching on ESPN/playing in smaller events/paying for special content like PPV broadcasts of the FT, regardless of how donkified the ME becomes. The branding value the WSOP has is that high, and only grows higher as the prizepool gets larger.

The reason this discussion sucks is not only that it's a discussion that's been had dozens of times on this board, but it also sucks because there's practically no incentive for Harrah's to raise the buy in, hence this discussion is as pointless as it is redundant.