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.

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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?

[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.