Use your social profile to sign in faster.
Or use your username or password below:
Bad username or password
Forgot your password?
I think it's important to point out that Matt isn't advocated that all reentry events be abolished. I believe the majority of them should be eliminated, and many of the reasons Matt makes in this article are ones that I agree with.
I also feel like poker may be going down the same path with guaranteed events. While events with guarantees are great every now and then, having a guarantee on every single event isn't a good thing, in my opinion. Much like what seemed to happen with the reentry fad, venues and tours seem to take one thing and copy it so much it becomes bad for the game.
Well said, bmileski.
cake2025 — It should be the same as in Nevada, as far as I understand. When you come to the state, as long as you have a valid account and are able to be geolocated as in the state of New Jersey, you should be able to play.
japurner — That's unfortunate, but as time goes on, I'm sure this process will be ironed out. Until things get fine tuned, though, it's going to be a "better safe than sorry" approach because operators of the rooms don't want to be breaking any laws.
thegimp9 — I like your thought process here. If you think of it in terms of "units" then these wins really don't seem that awesome. Consider how many people win a few multi-table SNGs online during one day, two- or three-table SNGs. It's kind of the same thing. I definitely don't want to take anything away from this accomplishment of Gruissem, because he is defeating a top-level field of players, but yes, it's still only two or three tables.
I wonder if someone could draw a correlation between the skill level of these players versus how many lesser-skilled or amateur players they equal. For example, defeating one Erik Seidel in your field is the equivalent of defeating 10 amateur players. So then if you defeat a player with 10 Seidels, it's the equivalent of beating a field of 100 players. I don't even know if this makes sense, I'm just kind of tossing out ideas here to maybe better put these events into perspective. At the end of the day, when the skill level is extremely high and the structure of an event allows for a lot of play, you can really see the best players thrive.
narucy — Explanation as to why you think that?
monvegas — And considering how much tax money the government takes from even something like the World Series of Poker (they took $9 million alone from the final table), they should be very pro poker, almost bordering on the lines of running satellites to the event themselves!
tm3545 — Very true, which is a good thing to have. Not many young professional players have that to fall back on these days. I do think it's already a good sign he's willing to travel the tournament circuit and put himself out there as poker's new ambassador. It's also a good sign that he's not firing all of the money away, but instead using a little bit of bankroll management by selling shares. It may not allow him to win as much, but the risk if far less and he'll be able to sustain himself in poker longer.
thegimp9 — You're going to have to take that up with the boss man yourself, haha.
GregDude — As far as we know, no they don't yet. From everything I've come to understand, this show would be great if a network picks it up, so hopefully that happens.
Gus Hansen was a partner in the online poker site PokerChamps.com, which was launched in 2003 and then sold in 2005 for nearly $15 million. He also launched a poker forum and strategy website in 2007 and sold that a year later for an unknown amount.
When you combine that with the fact that he was part of Team Full Tilt getting those payments and his success in tournaments, you can see where the money comes from.
dsgnr4hire — That was the original plan, but this was altered before the start of the final table. Depending on length, it was going to be a game-time decision as to whether or not to play down to three-handed or heads-up play, but TV was leaning towards heads-up play. The debate here is always whether or not TV will be able to have enough content to fill the time slot on ESPN on Tuesday.
PartyScout — There was some rumor about the two talking about a deal following getting to heads-up pay, but nothing was confirmed. It wouldn't surprise me, though, because the money is so big that it's very smart to lock up some extra cash.
RuOnCrack — Yes, that hand was crazy!
Thanks for following along, everyone. One more day today! Who's going to win?
muck_em_all — Thanks for the comment, and too bad you couldn't make an even deeper run in 2006! Hopefully you'll be able to get into the Main Event, it's every poker player's dream for sure. I have yet to play in it myself, but eventually plan to. If you're located in Nevada, the satellites on WSOP.com might be your easiest and cheapest way to win a seat if you want to go that route. I plan on taking some shots for next year. Good luck!
hgaerttner — Does using a site like HideMyAss.com to hide the IP address help any? Sorry for that.
The argument I would make for the World Series of Poker Player of the Year would be to start the contest in Las Vegas. Not to end it there. My reasoning is that so many more people attend the WSOP in Las Vegas than the WSOP Asia-Pacific or WSOP Europe. There could then be the emergence of several contenders for the WSOP POY title, which could in turn bump the attendance at the other two events.
Lonnie Harwood is a great example of this. Arguably, she would've never in a million years attended WSOP Europe if it wasn't for her success in Las Vegas. Heading to Europe with a plump bankroll and the chance of earning POY surely had to play a big factor in her motivation to attend. One would easily think she would also make the trip to Australia for WSOP Asia-Pacific if it were still to come.
While you don't necessarily have to be in the top 10 for WSOP POY points after Las Vegas, I believe there would be a few extra players that have big success in Las Vegas and decide to head to WSOP Europe or WSOP Asia-Pacific. Let's say you get five extra players. While I understand that's not eye-popping numbers, the fields in Europe and Australia are much smaller compared to Las Vegas, so this number is still somewhat significant. Plus, there's is the added storyline of each of these players.
I also believe that the WSOP should award a WSOP POY for each stop individually, and then one big POY award that encompasses all three events. This helps to let the more local players know that they can still win a prestigious WSOP POY award (and prize) even if they aren't a professional poker player with the time and funds to travel all around the world and play in all events at the three stops to give themselves the best chance.
The last part I'd like to mention is the part in parenthesis above about the prizes. Daniel Negreanu won his buy-in to all three Main Events next year, which is great. Having that sort of reward for the WSOP POY is awesome. If you moved to also having individual POYs per event, the WSOP would be out a maximum $60,000, which wouldn't be that bad at all. I also really, really like the idea of a car as the prize, like Negreanu won back in 2004 (Toyota Tundra). I'm sure with all of the connections Caesars and the WSOP have, they could find a car manufacturer to sponsor this prize as a branding and advertising effort.
As you pointed out, there are some other flaws with the POY point system that need to be tinkered with a little bit, and maybe in the future the Global Poker Index comes into play. I definitely believe the WSOP shouldn't just sit back and not take a look at this each year. Things constantly change and evolve, and the WSOP has done very well in making adjustments each year. The WSOP POY system should also be looked at very closely each year for ways to improve.
There is a little subscript stating that "these are big estimations" and Alec knows this. He is more making the example easy to display the overall idea within the piece.
PartyScout — Every year, the $10,000 no-limit 2-7 single draw and $50,000 Poker Players' Championship are two of the most "prestigious" events in all of poker, yet they only draw about 100-200 players in each. It's not always about field size, and if an event is advertised as a bracelet event, then it's going to be a bracelet event. Could you imagine the impact if there was an asterisk on events that said a gold bracelet would only be awarded if a certain amount of players participated?
With this event, it's a starting point. The WSOP will need to build from here I believe it's much more important to point out the positives that the WSOP is doing for the game of poker and its movement to help make progress in the female area.
dsgnr4hire — While it may not be the ideal number of entries that has eye popping, this was the first World Series of Poker gold bracelet event in Europe, so it's a starting point. I predicted 50-75 players, and that's what this got, but it did draw some well known players, which is good to see. The WSOP has said it's committed to helping to grow the game from a female perspective, and this is a step in the right direction.
As for the "Should this be a bracelet event?" argument, yes, it should be. As long as it was announced as a bracelet event well ahead of time — and it was — then it should stand as one. All WSOP events run the risk of not getting hundreds or thousands of entrants, but they will always be bracelet events if announced as them.
Tom_0309 — The software is great in general. In comparison to Ultimate Poker, I believe it's a lot better. UP was the first to the punch, but it clearly shows that the wait was worth it for WSOP.com. The software isn't as good as Full Tilt Poker or PokerStars, but it's right behind those two if you ask me. Keep in mind that this is also the first version and there will surely be updates available as time goes on to continue to improve the product.
I agree that it will be interesting to compare the same site across different states, so we'll have to wait and see what the software in New Jersey looks like when it launches. Different states will have different rules and regulations, which could lend itself for slightly different software.
philw — Yes, you could be the all-time money earner and be a losing player, but that's just the nature of poker. Technically, you could be the all-time money earner in golf and also be a losing player as players pay entries to tournaments. Moorman is a winning player, though. I don't think we need to question that in his regard.
Wish the best of luck to you, yolapavement. It's definitely going to be a process getting our money back, but hopefully we can get our hands back on the majority of it.