Is winning the WSOP Main Event really prestigious?

[thehun69]

After watching this years main event, something really got to me, and I thought that this would spark an interesting conversation on this forum. What got to me, moreso than Jamie's game, was a comment made to Daniel Negraneau on Day 1 at the tables.

Daniel was in a hand with someone, and popped the hand up, not much , something like $200. The pot at this point was starting to develop, so I can imagine it has at MOST maaybe 350-400 in chips. The next thing you know the next player to act raises all in...all $10,000 in chips. At this point Daniel rolls his eyes and folds. Looks at the guy and says, "This is great. Pot goes to 200, 8000 raise...Pot goes to 400, raise 10,000." The rocket surgeon at the table then says "Hey, that's poker." Daniel glares at this guy and says "Nope. That ain't poker. That may be the way y'all play it, but believe me that ain't poker" (This was the gist of the conversation, but word for word, that player said "Hey, that's poker.)

This conversation got me to thinking about the essence of the WSOP. When it was founded, thirty years ago, the spirit of the competition was to see who the BEST player of poker was among the players considered to be legends at the time. This is compared to the All Star game of poker. Sure, there were only 13 guys for the first one, but those 13 guys were the best and could crack a bank in half. I don't know the complete history of the WSOP, but obviously at some point, they opened up the entrance to the public, well, anyone who could afford the ten grand. But even then the fields were relatively small, and the ratio of amateurs to pros while large are now miniscule to today's gargantuan fields of donks. Of the over 8000 players in the last WSOP, what would you consider to be the percentage of pros, compared to percentage of people who have no friggin business even being there, but happen to have 10 grand to burn, or won it in an online freeroll or 10 dollar satellite. With comments like that, and the general level of playing there overall, I was thinking that I would hardly call the WSOP prestigious anymore. It's become a lottery, plain and simple. Getting through the first day, while always difficult in the past, is now something just over a crapshoot with all the wild playing of all these donks out there. That's not to say that skill won't take you far, just look at Raymers 2004 and 2005 run, even Hachem's run in 2005 2006, both players winning and then going deep. That is all skill baby. But I think the sheer size is getting out of hand, the quality of players is decreasing exponentially and getting that "dead money" is becoming growingly difficult simply due to the sheer size of the fields.

I want to go on and on..but hey, gotta get back to work here. But at the end of the day, winning the WSOP Main Event, while it is a feat, and the money is sweet too, the prestige of it all, really isn't there, not anymore.

THE HUN.

[MrFizzbin]

I don't know if you noticed this or not, but while a few donkey luckboxes slipped through to the final table the last couple of years (04,05,06) the eventual winners were guys who had been playing for a while. Raymer had played for years and I believe 04 was his 2nd or 3rd time at the series. Hatchem was a semi pro internet player. Gold had at least had some solid cashes before he won.

In my opinion the real issue is that poker isn't brain surgery, Making a living over a long period of time takes skill but in a tournament luck, and "running good" are much bigger factors. Is the bracelet itself an accomplishment ? absolutely as is ANY bracelet at the WSOP, but the real measure of a players place in Poker History is How many and How often. Thats what seperates the great from the very good and the very lucky. The main event is just one of those opportunities for all to be measured.

that my .02....

[grdred944]

I see where you are going with this but I don't believe prestigious should be the word used. In comparison with any other no limit holdem tournament it is hands down, the most prestigious, if for nothing else then by it's size and length of time. Now we may argue whether time and number of participants adds to the prestige of any event but for poker at least, there is nothing else to compare it to.

Now, if you want to talk about the greatest poker accomplishment I would say winning the HORSE tournament ($50K or not) is a greater accomplishment. Chip Reese is held in much higher regard for his win this year than any of the one-time winners of the ME (IMHO). But again, that doesn't change the perception of the masses of what is the more prestigious event.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
The rocket surgeon at the table then says "Hey, that's poker." Daniel glares at this guy and says "Nope. That ain't poker. That may be the way y'all play it, but believe me that ain't poker"

[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel is just irritated that some people aren't letting him smallball everyone to death. It reminds me of people at $2/4 complaining because you raised with a draw and got there.

Angle shooting and outright cheating aren't poker. Preflop overbets are.

[Rottersod]

No, it is not prestigious to win the ME anymore. All it is is an accompishment and it shows that you got very lucky to survive early. For every Greg Raymer example I'll raise you a Robert Varkonyi and a Chris Moneymaker, and lets not forget Jamie Gold. Even Joe Hachem's win was more notable for the hands at the FT that he threw away after being re-raised so that others would bow out before him.

As I've said before, when we have thousands of players in the ME on a freeroll then the prestige factor diminishes greatly. Sure, there will always be people and media who recognize the winner as the "best in the world" but we all know that isn't even close.

[alphatmw]

can anyone say that the winner of the main event was someone who DIDN'T get much better cards than everyone else? in fact, can anyone say that the winner of the main event usually is not the person at the final table who gets the best cards?

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
can anyone say that the winner of the main event was someone who DIDN'T get much better cards than everyone else? in fact, can anyone say that the winner of the main event usually is not the person at the final table who gets the best cards?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Back in the days when there were many more pro's you could actually play some real poker early on and that is what the OP was referring to. Now, it's just a crapshoot for the first few rounds and hope you survive and if you do then you can play some poker foe the middle rounds to build up your stack. The later rounds will always be a gambool due to the increased blinds and the nature of tourneys. The big difference between now and then is that now we have thousands of freerollers playing in what is supposed to be the most prestigious tourney and because they are freerolling they don't play poker. They play to get the big win and that diminishes the event. Most of you are too young to have any idea about what I'm talking about though.

[alphatmw]

yeah, cause first hand experience is the only way anyone could know such things.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Back in the days when there were many more pro's you could actually play some real poker early on ... Now, it's just a crapshoot for the first few rounds ... because they are freerolling they don't play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument has always seemed like total garbage to me. There's no rule that you have to play small pots until the antes kick in. You pay your money, you play how you want. Saying it's "not poker" is bitter and whiny. Learn to adapt.

What this new aggressive gang of players is REALLY showing is how NLHE tournaments aren't exactly what everyone seems to want them to be. Then people complain because not everyone wants to play postflop.

[ QUOTE ]
They play to get the big win

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a bad strategy or something?

Plus, most people love and romanticize the notion that you should be playing for the win/bracelet and not just to sneak into the money. If Doyle said he was just playing for the win, everyone would nod with admiration and respect.

[thehun69]

[ QUOTE ]
can anyone say that the winner of the main event was someone who DIDN'T get much better cards than everyone else? in fact, can anyone say that the winner of the main event usually is not the person at the final table who gets the best cards?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is yes. You should read more stories of the WSOP when it was just Amarillo Slim, Johnny Moss, Doyle, even later with Stu Unger, and when you read about some of the hands they played to build their stack to get to the end, you'll see that it was all skill to get there. Is there luck? Absolutely, I'm not denying that. But these guys were champions because they didn't need the cards.

THE HUN.