Too many bracelet events at the WSOP

[Jooka]

I didn't get that from what he said during the interview at all. He was saying it would cheapen the events here in the US if they continued to add more and more outside of Vegas. Hard to not agree with him especially when you hear people like Eric Lindgren say the same thing and have zero bracelets.

[BJ Nemeth]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno why the winner of some $1500 event gets the same bracelet as the winner of 50k horse or ME

[/ QUOTE ]

While most of the bracelets were of a standard design, three were very, very different -- the Main Event, the $50,000 H.O.R.S.E., and the Ladies Event.

The bracelets for the Main Event and the $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. were enhanced with more jewels, and designed to stand out from the other bracelets. The bracelet for the Ladies Event was more feminine in design.

Nobody would argue that the Ladies Event is on par with the other two, but since it's guaranteed that a woman would win (and be representing other women), a more feminine bracelet makes sense.

[CincyLady]

I for one wouldn't be opposed to making any event that costs less than a 5k buyin a 'ring' event, and have at least one (higher level) 5k event for each type of game (Omaha, Stud, Limit, Texas hold 'em no limit, ect) being ran

In other words, the winners of those (lesser) events where that the buy in is less than 5k, would get a ring instead of a Bracelet.

[MarkGritter]

I fail to see what the point is here. "Too many bracelets"? WTF? Who is being harmed?

Are we going to retroactively downgrade some of Phil Hellmuth's bracelets because they weren't in the biggest-buyin event of that type?

In 2003 there were 35 bracelets awarded, and many of the preliminary events had 200 to 400 people. In 2007 these events were anywhere from two to ten times larger. I think if somebody deserves a "bracelet" for beating 200 players in 2003, then beating 800 players in a similar event in 2008 is worth a "bracelet" too, even if there are more tournaments.

I welcome the addition of more events. It gives me more flexibility to find time to visit Las Vegas and play in an event I'm excited about. There is absolutely no point in denying me the chance to win a bracelet just because I can make a $2000 event but not a $3000 event.

There is no problem that having fewer "bracelet" events will solve. There is no point to mucking with a tradition; it is not like we are in danger of seeing every random slob in your poker room sporting a WSOP bracelet.

[pokergrader]

Hellmuth is obviously just trying to protect his record here.

Using the incredibly low estimate that 10,000 unique players played in the WSOP this year, that means 55/10000 = Just over half a percent of people win bracelets over the course of the series.

0.5% (or a little lower) to me sounds like a perfect balance for scarce, but at the same time within reach.