WSOP buy-in too small?

[HPG ADMIN]

If the field gets up to 5,500 or so (which is what I've heard it will be this year) will that be too big? With that many people, the blinds have to go up quicker or you need to lengthen out the tournament. With the tournament already being 5-6 days I dont think you can mke it longer. One solution would be to make the buy-in $25,000. One problem with that is that most people getting into the tournament today are getting in through cheap satellites online. If those tournaments are charging 2,000 people $50 for a satellite buy-in now and the cost of a WSOP entry went up to $25,000 then these $50 satellites could have 5,000 entries but still have a $50 buy-in to play one. So this might not lower the number of people entering the tournament.

In 1971, average annual salary was about $8,000. In 2003, it was about $34,500, or 4x times more. So WSOP entry should be about $40,000. At this price, I think the field would be reduced to about 1,000 players.
More important, WSOP would REALLY deserve the name of "World Championship od Poker". Because that is no longer the case today.

Francois, Paris, France

[deekay140]

It sounded good, til I saw you were French. JK
I agree, fee should be 50k

5,000 too much for people that have an average job like me and now your thinking of raising it.

I might be the only one who likes the large number of players. I think they should keep it all the same.

[Iceman37]

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.

[AdamWolf]

anyone ever hear the pros complain about the size of the tournaments/

I don't. I hear them tlak about how they love it..the chance tot ake more moeny away from the amateurs and fish and donkeys.

[HPG ADMIN]

Just because they don't complain doesn't mean they are unhappy. People who are successful don't complain - they make changes and adapt to problems. I haven't heard any pros complain either but I have heard many pros like Ivey come out and say it is way more advantagous now to play cash games than tournaments. Alot of the pros initially talked back in 2004 about all the dead money and how juicy the tournaments were but they quickly found out that if you play 10-20 big tournaments a year against 5,000 donkeys that a few bad beats can lead to a breakeven year.

The 50,000 HORSE event is already being talked about as being the new world championship. This is a better way to determine who is the best "poker player since 6 different games are played. the current main event, will eventualy just be what it is, The NO Limit champion only.

they already charge 50000 for horse. 10000 is str8. it aint about the money this yrs champ won 12000000. that is insane for six days. no need to raise it. it is alot of wannabes who want to test there skill/luck against the pros so let em have it. that is what makes poker. its nice to see that upset. its kinda like watching a gonzaga or rutgers win a national championship. it is the thrill of the upset.

[Jeanie]

is it okay if I put up an animated avatar on my profile?