FullTilt WSOP qualifiers

[mhcmarty]

[ QUOTE ]
You're underestimating the spouses who will balk at spending $10K cash, but would let you play a tourney where you can't sell the seat. This was one of the best reasons to play online sats, since you were locked into playing if you won.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, Do I tell my wife I have an option with the 10k or risk her not finding out from a friend?

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
So does this mean that the so called "poker boom" at the WSOP was fueled only by Sat. winners who had no other choice but to play? If so, why were the entering the sats in the first place? If you're going to get lucky and win a big online tourney, why not play one that pays cash in the first place?

BTW I'm not saying you're wrong, I just like rhetorical questions [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

And I like answering rhetorical questions. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Obviously some of the sat winners are players who would be likely to be playing anyway, they're just taking a cheaper route than direct buy-in.

But I think a lot of people are in the same boat as me. 10K is a major percentage of their bankroll. 10K might even be bigger than their either roll. If you sat into one of the WSOP sats that (as a large portion of the people do) and subsequently "win a seat" to the ME it's tough to justify not keeping the 10K knowing that odds of you actually cashing are slim. If you're forced to play by the rules then it's a different story. You essentially entered a single tournament with two phases, one on-line and the other live in Vegas. It's easy to justify the small entry to the original sat as taking a flyer. Not so easy to justify continuing on when you can pocket the 10K.

A good example is one of the winners in a WSOP sat I played on Full Tilt. I saw what looked like some questionable plays so our of curiosity I looked the guy up on OPR. To that point he had played mostly 5+.50 tournaments with a few 10+1 and 1+.25s thrown in and was well in the red at that level. He'd won his seat in the sat thru an 8+.80 sat. Based on that I'd guess his bankroll was increased many times just by the $2k in expense money that was part of the package. Anyone with just a glimmering of good bank roll management would take the money and run in that situation.

I've got no idea what percentage of people fall in that category, but I would guess the winner of the WSOP this year isn't going to be another "Moneymaker." I'd be surprised if the number of entries doesn't go down from last year. The only question IMO is how much it drops.

[kindling]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're underestimating the spouses who will balk at spending $10K cash, but would let you play a tourney where you can't sell the seat. This was one of the best reasons to play online sats, since you were locked into playing if you won.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, Do I tell my wife I have an option with the 10k or risk her not finding out from a friend?

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly, it is -LifeEV to lie to your spouse about $10K. You'd have to consider the consequences of the different alternatives here. If any of them end with you playing the role of John Wayne Bobbitt, then avoid them.

[greg nice]

and its -lifeev to have a wife that tells you what to do and you listen