Main event buy-in too low?

TheMuppet · #1 07-04-2006, 09:52 AM

Am I the only one who thinks its too low?

Way back when this all started, $10K was a LOT of money. Now its meh whatever.

So you get a field of 8K+ players, and the "luckbox" wins it.

I think they should raise the buy-in to $100K or maybe even $500K. The prize pool would be the same, but the field would be drastically cut.

What do you think?

okterrific · #2 07-04-2006, 10:00 AM

Ive never heard this talked about before.
please do go on.

$5 million buyin sounds just about right.

VladKGB · #3 07-04-2006, 10:03 AM

i agree with this. and i believe i've seen this discussion before. i think WSOP should be more exclusive. They should put the players thru qualifiers to narrow down the field to the best X amount of players out of all events, then merge them into the main event which would be the finals. this is the "World Series", it should be more than just a direct buy in.

timex · #4 07-04-2006, 10:17 AM

I think that the should maintain the main events buyin, but add other events to the WSOP like a 50k NLHE and a 200k NLHE or something like that.

ZenMasterFlex · #5 07-04-2006, 10:50 AM

To assure that the best player would win the tournament, the event would have to be 6 months long minimum. And to make that worth it to the best player, I'd imagine the buy in would have to be 1-5 million.
So you would have Phil Ivey standing there with all that money by himself with the ESPN cameras waiting for a challenger, I like it the way it is.

If you're looking for a structure that only Ivey could win, I imagine only Ivey would sign up.

stinkypete · #6 07-04-2006, 10:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i agree with this. and i believe i've seen this discussion before. i think WSOP should be more exclusive. They should put the players thru qualifiers to narrow down the field to the best X amount of players out of all events, then merge them into the main event which would be the finals. this is the "World Series", it should be more than just a direct buy in.

[/ QUOTE ]

just pretend the first 5 days of the main event are qualifiers, and you have exactly what you're asking for.

JohnnyFX · #7 07-04-2006, 11:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i agree with this. and i believe i've seen this discussion before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, this is definitely the first time this has ever been suggested.

DVaut1 · #8 07-04-2006, 11:42 AM

I think the ME buy-in should be so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe can enter.

In fact, the WSOP is entirely too 'open'. We have all these 'luck-boxes', 'internet players', and 'non-professionals' entering tournaments. Frankly, the WSOP should be designed solely so a small cartel of big-name pros can make the FT in every event. If Ivey, Hellmuth, or Negreanu don't win, then clearly the winner was some kind of luckbox who cheated the real pros out of the bracelet they truly deserved. I will not be happy with the WSOP until the pros have their [censored] constantly sucked by the adoring public; the tournament structures and buy-ins should reflect this.

As we all know from the explosion of internet poker and the enduring popularity of rags to riches stories like Chris Moneymaker, the game is best served when it's completely inaccessibly to the teeming masses. "Anyone can win" stories have made poker utterly unprofitable due to the never-ending stream of donks that this attitude brings to the table. Pros can't win when donks play terribly -- I mean, c'mon, how are pros supposed to win bracelets when they have all their great hands called by trash? Read TOP and you'll understand.

kumarshah · #9 07-04-2006, 11:50 AM

So, Raymer was a "luckbox"? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Have you followed up on results of some of the winners in other tournaments?

I don't know about Moneymaker but Raymer and Hachem (sp?) both have done well in other tournaments to. Infact, Raymer did brilliant in the next WSOP ME itself finishing 29th or something I beleive.

timex · #10 07-04-2006, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To assure that the best player would win the tournament, the event would have to be 6 months long minimum. And to make that worth it to the best player, I'd imagine the buy in would have to be 1-5 million.
So you would have Phil Ivey standing there with all that money by himself with the ESPN cameras waiting for a challenger, I like it the way it is.

If you're looking for a structure that only Ivey could win, I imagine only Ivey would sign up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing the 6 months number is random, but I'd guess something more like 10years