Harrah's is diluting the WSOP brand - my proposal for the WSOP - Page 2

NickMPK · #11 08-27-2006, 11:03 PM

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] · #12 08-27-2006, 11:05 PM

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 · #13 08-28-2006, 01:09 AM

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

NickMPK · #14 08-28-2006, 01:15 AM

[ 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 · #15 08-28-2006, 09:40 AM

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 · #16 08-29-2006, 12:28 AM

[ 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 · #17 08-29-2006, 12:52 AM

[ 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? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

elliot · #18 08-29-2006, 02:23 AM

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 · #19 08-29-2006, 02:58 AM

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 (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 · #20 08-29-2006, 11:38 AM

[ 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.