|
Cheapened tournament
I don't think the CASH entry fee should be higher, necessarily. However, I wouldn't object one ounce if the tournament required online sites to post a much larger entry fee for their satellite winners. This would be blatantly unfair, a complete double standard, and yet would still be the way to go, I believe.
Online entries into the series have become so widespread (and not terribly difficult to win) that they've all but "cheapened" the WSOP. What's more, the quality of players who are slipping through (and even somehow succeeding--ala Chris Moneymaker and Mattias Andersen) is deteriorating horribly. Even Greg Raymer got some spectacular cards to win--but seemed to have played at least a decent game, from what I could tell. Poker's explosive growth has been in great part due to the pervasiveness of online play, but the resultant "mean" quality of player has been brought WAY down. I think the online game, being responsible for this, should be required to account for it (by paying a higher stake to get their weak-assed players into the world's most prestigious poker event--an event that is SUPPOSED to be expensive, to keep out the riff-raff--leaving us only the very best players in our industry competing for the very top prize).
That's my thought, anyway.
PS - The first person who defends Chris Moneymaker as some kind of "great" poker player gets mooned. A trained chimp can make a 3/4 court shot, but that doesn't make him Michael Jordan. Chris Moneymaker does one thing well...he lays an excellent bluff. Good thing, too...that helps to make up for the bonehead elements of his game, of which there are plenty. He's no Daniel Negreanu, and doesn't deserve to be treated like he is.
|