Poker Forum

The GPI seems fundamentally flawed, making presumptions about playing ability that - according to Annie Duke - coincide with how much money a professional poker player is willing to regularly commit to a buy-in, in order to be recognized as a ranked, poker professional. The notion that the "Creators" of the GPI, addressed the concept of "relative difficulty", and made presumptions that higher buy-in events are more difficult than say, $500-$1,000 events, because of the "elite" factor is absurd.

So how does the EPL explain the WSOP main event, whose majority of entrants don't pay $10k, but rather satellite in for $1,000 or less? Is this a field of pokers elite? And if the WSOP main event is an exception, then why wouldn't there be other exceptions? I realize that the GPI may be in its infancy, but would it not have been prudent to consult the very body of individuals for which the EPL functions, before taking such liberties about how their poker ranking will be measured?

Additionally, it seems that the Epic Poker League contradicts itself with the Global Poker Index, with a buy-in baseline and cap. It's argument for the baseline is that higher buy-in events attract more of the "elite" players. But the cap (it seems), is a checks and balances approach to reigning in the, ...(a'hem) ultra-elite? I'm confused.

Poker's working professionals that live in Las Vegas play daily in everything from micro, to nosebleed stakes. The notion that a Global Poker Index can discriminate against a vast cross section of professionals is wrong, and underscores a fundamental flaw in the GPI system. I believe that, lower buy-in events should be integrated, (ie; $350-$1,500) so that ALL, live tournament professionals can have an equal chance of finding their way onto the ranking list. Perhaps such a ranking system could be a tiered design, with acknowledgement of lower, buy-in professionals. Why should the following individual be excluded from a ranking?

John Doe (2012)
plays in weekly, $500 NLHE tournaments in Las Vegas
by August, John has played in 30 tournaments averaging field size of 80, and achieved the following results
1st place finishes, 3
final table appearances, 11
cashes, 18

I think it's troubling that a small handful of individuals would so freely design and publish benchmarks for an industry, and that that industry would offer little challenge. Annie Duke is a polarizing figure in Poker - people love her or they hate her, there's really no in between with her. And while she has a great deal of playing experience, she is no ultimate authority of an industry-wide ranking system. Her counterparts have impressive resumes, but may not fully grasp the significance of the GPI, and how (at least at this early stage), it discriminates against working professionals in Poker, including Las Vegas professionals, that grind out weekly $350-$500-$1,500 tournaments.

Kudos for swinging the bat, but there's gotta be equality among the pros. Using adjectives like "elite" when describing a preferred GPI 300 body, seems out of touch with the reality of the grind that working, poker professionals face on a daily basis.