Texas Holdem Strategy

chillin411 · Joined: 22 Jan 2005 Posts: 803 Location: Florida

http://www.internettexasholdem.com/poker-columnists/matthew-hilger-aka-mchilger/a-proposal-for-the-world-series-of-poker/

"There has been a lot of talk within the poker community about the future of the World Series of Poker. The central debate has focused on whether or not the main event is too big in terms of the number of entrants. Some people have argued that the buy-in should be increased in an effort to reduce the number of entrants, while others like the $10,000 buy-in. Let’s look at some of the arguments for both sides."

Feel free to ask questions or post comments you may have below.

toom · Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject:

The solution is simple, IMHO. Separate the "World Championship" from the "Main Event".

=====================================
Regardless of the buy in, the "World Champion" title should be awarded in a tournament made primarily of big time professional players. There should be a qualfier for the Championship - perhaps $150K or $200K in verified tournament wins in the previous year. Pros who money could remain eligible from year to year without meeting the qualification standard (like the PGA Tour does...win a tournament and you remain eligible for a while).

The buy in for the new Championship would have to be significantly increased to account for the huge decrease in players. ESPN won't get excited about televising a final table where the winner gets $200,000.

I truly believe, also, that the Championship should not consist solely of NLHE. There should be a variety of games, perhaps leading up to NLHE for the culmination. NLHE is almost necessary for TV, however.

=============================================
The Main Event should remain what it has become: an enormous crapshoot where an average joe can walk away with millions. The pros would still happily play...they still would be looking at $50-100K tournament equity on their buy in. The dead money still gets a chance to knock out big time players like Chan, Hellmuth, and Brunson (Matthew is either laughing or steaming at me for that one, LOL).

=============================================
I think my solution is win-win for everybody:

The allure of the Main Event remains for average schmucks like me.

Harrah's is happy because it still has an enormous Series and the Main Event gets bigger and bigger. If anything, the prestige of "my" new Championship increases interest in the Series overall. Moneymaker, Raymer, and now Hachem did nothing to increase my interest in the WSOP. Only my increase in interest in poker has increased my interest in the WSOP.

ESPN's broadcast of the Championship becomes HUGE. Watching a potential final table of Brunson, Harrington, Lederer, Chan, Ferguson, Cloutier, Reese, Hellmuth (for the tantrum), and Ivey is pretty close to my ideal "Poker on TV" event. This may even justify a live broadcast.

ESPN still gets countless hours of filler with all of the lesser events, and the ME is still worth televising because of the big money involved.

The pros are happy...they don't have to give their championship to a guy like Moneymaker, Raymer, or Hachem (and don't tell me how good any one of those guys is...I know two of them are good, but they're not World Champion caliber players). The pros are also happy because they get a shot at all the fish in the ME.

=====================================
I intend to qualify for the WSOP ME this year for the following reasons...

1) It's a vacation. Two weeks in Vegas will be just about right.

2) I believe that I will be able to qualify for some amount less than the $2-3000 I will receive from the site as expense money. If so, the trip becomes +EV for me if you consider what I would have spent on vacation.

3) I want to play in a room with 2000 other players. I want to experience the size and scope of the event.

4) There's always the chance that I'll win something, too Wink

. I will certainly be playing to win $.

the Dragon · Joined: 29 Jun 2005 Posts: 39 Location: Silver Spring, MD

Several thoughts from an average poker player.

First, the current explosion of entries in the Main Event is a result of the explosion of internet poker. The TV fuels the internet poker which fuels entries to the Main Event. This everyone knows.

Second, I am not sure that the television is enhanced with a final table of the who's who of poker. I do enjoy watching some of the specialized all star tourneys on TV.

Third, the current format allows players even as weak as I am to enjoy watching the pro's have to prove their metal by playing against players who are unpredictable because they themselves don't quite know what they are doing, while they are doing it.

In conclusion, if the pro's want their own World Series, create it, and maybe Matthew's idea would work for that purpose, yet back 15-20 years ago when I first started following the Main Event (when it have 260-270 entries), and $10K was more dear, there were a nice percentage of people with 10K who took their shots, not unlike those with more cash than sense, who show up to play the top players in the big cash games in Vegas.

Let us dreamers dream, it is the only "sport" where the rank amateur can play side by side with the pros and have a chance to win.

PauliF · Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:34 pm Post subject:

Toom i really like your idea

leave the main event as it is ,...
then have a championship event

why not make the entry requirement to the championship event that you had to cash in any of that years WSOP events plus maybe if you where a final tablist the year before

also no need to make the entry fee crazy...
why not make the buy in to the championship event 10 or 20 k
plus a 0.5% or 1% "tax" from the total buy in of all the other events

that would make it a massive pay out event consisting of only people who had cashed
so a very high proportion of good players and pros with loads of dead money but not thousands of extra players

also what game should it be?

HORSE?

which btw stands for ?

Holdem, Omaha, Razz, Stud and?

toom · Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:43 pm Post subject:

E= Stud Hi Lo (Eight or better to qualify for low)

I edited my original post to mention that NLHE should not be the Championship game.

hallandnash · Joined: 20 Nov 2005 Posts: 0

How about making this a true "world series" with this idea...

World Series of Poker - Sponsored Event worth $5-10 million
------------------------------

Ways to get in:
1 - Finish at the final table of any WPT,EPT,WSOP,CPT (canadian poker tour, eh) event - Auto Entry, no fee.
No idea how many events, but say 100 events x 10 players, that's the top 1000 players.
2 - Finish "in the money" at any of the above events, pay $10k to enter championship... maybe adds another 500-1000 players
3 - Finish "in the money" at the in-house WSOP qualifier, with the $10k entry fee. Cap the money here to top it up to max 2500 players.

To me this is the best of both worlds, Internet sites can feed players to the sub-qualifier and winners, aka the top players, earn their entry into the series.

The size will be smaller. Some real sponsorship would bring in some money - much like Golf and Tennis do. The "better players" should make it in. And there is still the opportunity for "joe public" to buyin and qualify.

Patch · Joined: 08 Feb 2005 Posts: 594

darvon · Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:27 pm Post subject:

Before discussing the solution, I'd like to analyze the problem more.

There are 4 groups in this event.

TV

Harrah's

Veterans (for these purpose's, lets say that Matthew and anyone above Matthew is a Vet, anyone less in an Amateur)

Amateurs

========================
The "problem" seems to be that there are more amateurs who are reaching the final table and the Championship than before.

Let's take a look at motivations of each group.

TV wants ratings. To get ratings TV wants a skeleton of known names and a seasoning of unknowns. Lets say no less than 2 Vets per table. TV also wants Characters. Good clowns and bad Jerks. TV wants stories. NEW stories. So the ideal table for TV is 3 Vets, 1 Young Good Clown Amateur, 1 Crusty Old Good Guy, 2 Women Good Guys, 1 Jerk, 1 Hollywood amateur, and 1 Powerful Villain. Current system seems to overload the end tables with Amateurs and the Vets get taken out too early. Problem: Vets get taken out too early, but TV needs the spice of new clowns and jerks and women and stories.

Harrah's - I haven't a clue what Harrahs wants, other than a big crowd at thier hotels and TV publicity for thier hotels. I don't even know which pays better, crowd or TV. Any guesses? The "problem" certainly doesn't seem to be hitting the crowds. The only issue is the TV impact.

Vets - THESE are the complainers. The problem is that with the VET/Amateur ratio at about 20:1, not many vets can make the final tables against those odds. They want to get the ratio down to about 2:1

Amateurs - Mostly they love the format. This is thier only significant tourney and it gives them a shot.

==============================
The proposal - Raise the entry fee to $100K.

What would that actually do??? SImple. Let's say there are (existing) 125 Vets and 2500 Amateurs. If we up the amount to $100K what will happen?

Well of the 2500 Amateurs, about 2400 got there by satalite. So with the SAME committment you would still have 250 people. BUT I think that there would just be MORE sattelites until you get a large number of people there. Remember that the payoff would be 10X also, so I think even in the first year there would be 1000 amateurs, more later.

What would it do to the pros?

Well I think that some of the pros wouldn't play for $100,000. Let's say 25. And some of the other vets would use the sattelites to enter, but that still means they have to sort their way thru 1000 people for a $100 sattelite. But the key to sattelites is that you can take several whacks at it.

So a $100,000 entry would have, in its first year, someting like 1000 amateurs and 100 vets. This would still mean that the final table only has about 2-3 of those vets and an amateur probably wins. No benefit for TV. Reduced crowds for Harrah. And the pros still would bitch when they got taken out in the 2nd day by some clown from Detroit.

What MIGHT be better for Vets and TV would be allowing a "seeding"

Let's say there are 100 identified Vets. Next years ME has 3000 entries. The 100 top Vets are held back. Days 1A and 1B reduce the 3000 to 1500. Days 2 and 3 reduce them to 350. Day 4 the "Vet 100" are seated with the chip average with the remaining 350. NOW you have a 3.5:1 chance as a Vet.

The final table has probably 4 Vets. Phil makes it to day 6. But the crowds are still as massive as a $10,000 entry can make them and the TV has repeat players for building the fan base.

In Summary.

The goal of reducing the Amateur/Vet ratio will NOT be served by an increased ENTRY fee. Indeed it may actually further drive it to a sattelite based entry.

The goal of higher Vet ratio in the final days/tables can be accomplished by a Split Seating.

biohazard · Joined: 23 May 2005 Posts: 371 Location: UK

Im suprised no one has thought of or suggested seeding players like they do withEuropean and world footbal championships.

The basics of it is that good players are seeded so they dont have to play as many other good players and the ameturs will have to play on tables with at least some good players. Maybe it would improve things a little bit or even a lot. who knows.

the Dragon · Joined: 29 Jun 2005 Posts: 39 Location: Silver Spring, MD

The Pro's do not want the risk. Makes perfect sense, that's why they are pro's, they have learned how to limit their risk in relation to their potential gain.

It would be interesting on how you would seed. There would be just as much contraversy there as well. (ie: Final Four, BCS)

Maybe in addition to seeding they should be guaranteed a mathematically correct allocation of hands. Setting a cold deck every so often should take care of that.

I figure if I pay my 10K, and a pro pays their 10K, then we start even and if they play better (which they should) they should do better. Why not give them more advantges as well.

It appears they want my money, they just don't want to play me.

mchilger · Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:22 am Post subject:

This article has created a lot of debate which I think is great. It's a subject important to many poker players which why I think this article is getting the response it has received.

Some comments. Some people have said, the main event is great so don't change it. This is the centerpiece for my proposal. I don't want to change the main event and I don't think most pros want to either. But at the same time there lacks an event where pros go at each other to win a prestigious event. This is why I proposed a $100K event.

There are two main problems with a $100K event. Many pros wouldn't be able to play. For example, I wouldn't play Smile

. But it would be something I would watch with immense curiousity and would dream of playing someday. It would also dampen the main event somewhat, but I think this would be very slight and wouldn't be a big worry.

Darvon, I don't think you would find as many satellites as you think. If we have both tournaments, most poker sites would still run satellites for the main event. You might see a few satellites for the $100K, but I don't think it would be massive. In terms of 1000 seats turning into 100 seats, I don't think it is a 1 to 1 ratio. Many players would avoid a $100 satellite where only 1 seat was awarded per 1000 players whereas they give it a try when 10 seats are awared. It seems more attainable so they try it. Win $10K and then be the next Steve Dannanbaum. But winning a $100K satellite would be very difficult, and what is your prize - the opportunity to play the cream of the crop in the poker world.

I really like the ideas of having a qualifier. Maybe you make the event more affordable to the pros, but limit the field somehow to 200 players or so. Maybe $25K and the WSOP kicks in another $2-3 million. The problem is how to do this. No matter what they come up with it would keep certain groups of people out. Maybe the answer is to have something tied with the Circuit events. This would of course generate more interest in them and Harrah's would benefit. It basically would turn the current Tournament of Champions into some type of big event during the WSOP.

Matthew

Piemaster · Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:31 am Post subject:

There are a couple of problems that I can see with the 'tournament of champions' event.

1. If it becomes more prestigious than the main event, then it would be this event that the online sites would want sattelites for. The importance of playing the main event would lessened, which in turn woud cause turnout for that event to decrease, which in turn would decrease the prize money, which would further decrease the prestige etc.

2. At 100k to enter, will many small-time professionals stop to think before enterring? It might be out of the bankroll for some, while others might think that it's just not worth paying such a large amount to enter a tournament where they have no positive expectation. Of course, the more 'borderline' pros that think like this, the less profitable it is for the others etc.

darvon · Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:45 am Post subject:

jfletcher · Will work for food Joined: 24 Aug 2004 Posts: 3038

I think the idea of having a separate main event and "championship" wouldn't work. It's like the college football bowl system here in the U.S. They have one bowl game for the national championship, and then a bunch of other bowl games that are just for entertainment purposes. They try to tell you that "these other bowls are just as important and exciting" but viewers and fans don't see it that way. The one that counts is the one for the "national championship."

Would the main event really have the same allure if it were actually just a "$10,000 buyin tournament with a bunch of internet qualifiers"? You could call it "the main event" but it wouldn't be the main event.

I doubt ESPN would go for that either. The beauty of the Steve Dannenman Story is that he's beating pros and playing for the real world championship. How can ESPN play that story if it's clear to everyone that this is "not the real championship," but just some tournament?

I think a separate "pro poker championships" at a different time of year at a different venue would be OK, though. I also think if the pros want to just butt up against each other, there will be more invitational-type made-for-TV things in the future, like the series running on Fox Sports Net.

(Separate idea: Maybe the pros could consider their championship to be whoever wins one of the Omaha tourneys, because no amateurs care about those anyway Smile

)

bpgui · 2K Club Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 2380 Location: Illinois

I love the idea of separating the World Championship from the Main Event. I don't know what the best system for setting up the tournament would be, but I do believe that increasing the buy in is in order (somewhere between $25k and $100k).

I know I am in the minority here, but I have absolutely no desire to ever play in the ME. Don't get me wrong, I aspire to improve my play to a level where I would feel comfortable paying $10,000 or more to play in a tournament. If and when that happens, I would much rather spend the entry fee on a tournament that isn't such a crap shoot. As for sattelites, right now I would personally rather take $ for winning (or placing) than a seat in the ME where I have to place again to get any profit.

I also may be in the minority here, but I would much rather watch a final table consisting mostly of professionals. After Ivey got knocked out this year, I watched very little of the remaining coverage, and didn't watch any after Matasow got knocked out. Watching a bunch of unknowns who aren't even close the caliber of the pros didn't interest me. I want to watch the pros, because of the caliber of thier play. If the NFL had New Orleans [2-8] and Houston [1-9] play a game on television one Sunday in February and called it the Super Bowl, I don't think I would watch that either.

On the issue of Sattelites for a $100k tournament, I have to take a position in the middle of Matthew and darvon. I think there would be a large number of internet qualifiers, but I do not think nearly as many as darvon suggests, because the simple amount of money. I definitely cannot imagine very many people putting up $100 to try to win a 1000 person tournament, winner take all. The sattellite structure would almost definitely have to be a series of levels. Perhaps the lowest level being $10 with one ticket per 10 entrants to a $100 tournament with one ticket per 10 entrants to a $1000 tournament, and so on. I think that the huge amount of $ that would have to be invested and number of players required for just one ticket (10,000 players at the lowest level) would definitely trim number of entrants down. Sure there would probably be more sattelite tournaments, but you need ten times more for each ticket. I can't imagine that type of increase in the sattelites.

	Odds Chart & Calculators Rakeback Comparison	TRY THIS US FRIENDLY POKER ROOM!!	FREE POKER GIFTS \| VISIT TITAN POKER
Internet Texas Holdem Poker Forum Party Poker Bonus PokerStars Bonus Texas Holdem Strategy Internet Poker Bonus Poker Book Store
Poker Blogs Internet Poker Rankings
FAQ \| Search Forum \| Watched Topics Memberlist \| Usergroups \| Register \| Profile \| Log in \| Log in to check your private messages

Internet Texas Holdem

Poker Forum

Party Poker Bonus

PokerStars Bonus