WSOP Buy-in: Should it be increased?

[Matty-o]

Has any thought been given to increasing to buy-in for the main event?
Hasn't it been a "mere" $10,000 for 30 years? I was just thinking about
what 10 grand probably means to a top pro. They probably don't even blink
when they lose that much in a cash game on Tuesday night.
My question is, what does everybody think would happen if the main event buy
in were increased to $25k or $50k?
Would the overall skill level go up? Down? The number of entries would
almost definitely drop, but by how much?
Would it be a "better" tourney, or a "worse" tourney?
M

[John B.]

I always wondered what it would be like to actually plop down the $10k and
be the very first one out in such a tournie. Ack! That would be quite the
powerful omen for sure.

John B.

"Marcstar" <43068182@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1128532615$632116@recpoker.com...
>
> The entrys would drop to less than 1000 maybe only 500. Winning a 10k sat
isnt
> as hard as winning a 50k. Remember most of the people who were playing
this
> year didnt buy in directly...hell Poker Stars sent about 1/5th of the
players
> there.
>
> The overall skill would go up without a doubt because there would be a
much
> higher pro to amatur ratio. It's that reason there that even the pros
don't
> want it to be increased...they love the overlay that they are getting now.
>
> On Oct 5 2005 12:10 PM, Matty-o wrote:
>
> > Has any thought been given to increasing to buy-in for the main event?
> > Hasn't it been a "mere" $10,000 for 30 years? I was just thinking about
> > what 10 grand probably means to a top pro. They probably don't even
blink
> > when they lose that much in a cash game on Tuesday night.
> > My question is, what does everybody think would happen if the main event
buy
> > in were increased to $25k or $50k?
> > Would the overall skill level go up? Down? The number of entries would
> > almost definitely drop, but by how much?
> > Would it be a "better" tourney, or a "worse" tourney?
> > M
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

[Kinnipak]

On Oct 5 2005 12:37 PM, John B. wrote:

> I always wondered what it would be like to actually plop down the $10k and
> be the very first one out in such a tournie. Ack! That would be quite the
> powerful omen for sure.
>
> John B.
>
> "Marcstar" <43068182@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1128532615$632116@recpoker.com...
> >
> > The entrys would drop to less than 1000 maybe only 500. Winning a 10k sat
> isnt
> > as hard as winning a 50k. Remember most of the people who were playing
> this
> > year didnt buy in directly...hell Poker Stars sent about 1/5th of the
> players
> > there.
> >
> > The overall skill would go up without a doubt because there would be a
> much
> > higher pro to amatur ratio. It's that reason there that even the pros
> don't
> > want it to be increased...they love the overlay that they are getting now.
> >
> > On Oct 5 2005 12:10 PM, Matty-o wrote:
> >
> > > Has any thought been given to increasing to buy-in for the main event?
> > > Hasn't it been a "mere" $10,000 for 30 years? I was just thinking about
> > > what 10 grand probably means to a top pro. They probably don't even
> blink
> > > when they lose that much in a cash game on Tuesday night.
> > > My question is, what does everybody think would happen if the main event
> buy
> > > in were increased to $25k or $50k?
> > > Would the overall skill level go up? Down? The number of entries would
> > > almost definitely drop, but by how much?
> > > Would it be a "better" tourney, or a "worse" tourney?
> > > M
> >
> >
> >

You'd have a hell of a story to tell for the rest of your life.
--

"People asking questions...lost in confusion."

_____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

[Michael Sullivan]

Matty-o <rgdfhsdfg@google.com> wrote:

> Has any thought been given to increasing to buy-in for the main event?
> Hasn't it been a "mere" $10,000 for 30 years? I was just thinking about
> what 10 grand probably means to a top pro. They probably don't even blink
> when they lose that much in a cash game on Tuesday night.
> My question is, what does everybody think would happen if the main event buy
> in were increased to $25k or $50k?
> Would the overall skill level go up? Down? The number of entries would
> almost definitely drop, but by how much?
> Would it be a "better" tourney, or a "worse" tourney?
> M

If you increased the buy-in, *everyone's* expectation would go down
because the field would get smaller and stronger.

it's already high enough that 80% of the entrants have to fool
themselves into believing they aren't really risking 10K by playing sats
instead of just buying in. I'm almost certain that doubling the buy
would decrease the total size of the prize pool.

As for determining who is the best player? it would get better, but
still suck. No single poker tournament is going to determine that very
well, so what's the point?

To my mind, keeping the price in a range that lots of people can "take
their shot" is very much in the interest of everybody involved. The
extra work involved in running a 6000 v. 1500 person tournament is
probably more than made up for by the extra action those 4500 people
bring to side games and other casino games (not to mention hotels and
restaurants, etc.).


Michael

[Jeff burns]

If they wanted to find the best player they wouldn't have to raise the buyin
just change the game. All pro say the world championship should be PL not NL



On Oct 5 2005 10:10 AM, Matty-o wrote:

> Has any thought been given to increasing to buy-in for the main event?
> Hasn't it been a "mere" $10,000 for 30 years? I was just thinking about
> what 10 grand probably means to a top pro. They probably don't even blink
> when they lose that much in a cash game on Tuesday night.
> My question is, what does everybody think would happen if the main event buy
> in were increased to $25k or $50k?
> Would the overall skill level go up? Down? The number of entries would
> almost definitely drop, but by how much?
> Would it be a "better" tourney, or a "worse" tourney?
> M



_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

[phlash74]

Also it should be mixed games. That's why Chan and Doyle are better
than Phil H, even when they were tied. Hellmuth still hasn't won a
bracelet in anything except hold 'em. Even then, one tournament
doesn't determine anything. However, the WSOP has become the
phenomenon it is because it's possible for a Moneymaker to win it.
Therefore, raising the buy-in or changing the game probably would
improve the skill level, but it would not necessarily improve the event.

[richiematt]

On Oct 5 2005 1:10 PM, Matty-o wrote:

> Has any thought been given to increasing to buy-in for the main event?
> Hasn't it been a "mere" $10,000 for 30 years? I was just thinking about
> what 10 grand probably means to a top pro. They probably don't even blink
> when they lose that much in a cash game on Tuesday night.
> My question is, what does everybody think would happen if the main event buy
> in were increased to $25k or $50k?
> Would the overall skill level go up? Down? The number of entries would
> almost definitely drop, but by how much?
> Would it be a "better" tourney, or a "worse" tourney?
> M

I think it should be increased. It's getting too big and starting to resemble a
freeroll.

Richie

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

[Bullet Proof]

On Oct 5 2005 10:23 PM, richiematt wrote:

>
>
>
> On Oct 5 2005 1:10 PM, Matty-o wrote:
>
> > Has any thought been given to increasing to buy-in for the main event?
> > Hasn't it been a "mere" $10,000 for 30 years? I was just thinking about
> > what 10 grand probably means to a top pro. They probably don't even blink
> > when they lose that much in a cash game on Tuesday night.
> > My question is, what does everybody think would happen if the main event buy
> >
> > in were increased to $25k or $50k?
> > Would the overall skill level go up? Down? The number of entries would
> > almost definitely drop, but by how much?
> > Would it be a "better" tourney, or a "worse" tourney?
> > M
>
> I think it should be increased. It's getting too big and starting to resemble
> a
> freeroll.
>
> Richie

They dont put it on for yur enjoyment.  They put it on to make money.  The more
heads the more money pretty simple!
So long
AND
Thanks for all the fish!



_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

[Super Steamer]

On Oct 5 2005 10:23 PM, richiematt wrote:

>
>
>
> On Oct 5 2005 1:10 PM, Matty-o wrote:
>
> > Has any thought been given to increasing to buy-in for the main event?
> > Hasn't it been a "mere" $10,000 for 30 years? I was just thinking about
> > what 10 grand probably means to a top pro. They probably don't even blink
> > when they lose that much in a cash game on Tuesday night.
> > My question is, what does everybody think would happen if the main event buy
> >
> > in were increased to $25k or $50k?
> > Would the overall skill level go up? Down? The number of entries would
> > almost definitely drop, but by how much?
> > Would it be a "better" tourney, or a "worse" tourney?
> > M
>
> I think it should be increased. It's getting too big and starting to resemble
> a
> freeroll.
>
> Richie

The bigger the better.  It's gotta be much more ev now with 20 gazillion
players.


_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com