WSOP 2006
The WSOP 2006 has just kicked off and it got me to thinking about a few things concerning it.
If you had $10,000 of absolutely disposable, non-need, just for poker income to spend during the 6 weeks of the WSOP, how would you spend it? Would you take all $10,000 and plop it down for the Main Event? Would you play $1,500 events, nightly $200 events, side games, satellites etc.?
Personally, I would probably play some of the $1,500-$3,000 events, play some $500 to $200 side tournaments, probably play some cash games and satellites as well, I might even play the $1,060 satellite for the main event. If I happened to hit one of the games, I would very seriously consider playing in the Main Event at that point. The biggest issue I have with the main event now, is just the sheer size of the field. You are talking 8,800 people and 7 days - only 2 days of actual play, before you get to day 3. The one alluring factor still is the $10K in starting chips and 2 hour blind rounds + the fact that blind rounds towards the end of day 2 start to really progress slowly, doubling only every 6 hours. This would be the hard part about saying no to that, and I eventually might just say go for it. Of course all this is assuming you actually have the time to do it. Imagine ... 7 days completely committed to being in Vegas and possibly not even cashing in the event! So you're looking at playing 3 days of poker, 8 actual days to just find out if you cash. Now - don't know how many of you have been to Vegas, but 8 days in that city might just kill me ... I think if the drinking and gambling didn't, laying by the pool in the summertime taking in the scenery would go a long ways towards greatly increasing chances of skin cancer.
One of the issues they have seemed to start to address is the amount of the buy-in. $10,000 for the Main Event, in my opinion, should be bumped up. Maybe not to $20,000, but at least to $15,000. Most of the players qualify through satellites and such, so it would probably only cut a percentage of those down. I understand the nostalgia of anybody can win and it's always been $10,000, but we're now talking 37 years that the buy-in has been $10,000 - inflation wise, the buy-in is about 1/10 of what it was in 1970, thus the large field.
This year however, they implemented a $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event. That's alternating rounds of limit Hold-em, Omaha, Razz, Stud, and Stud hi-lo, with the final table being played NL Hold-em. I think most of the professionals believe that this is probably the true test of who actually is the best poker player in the world. So depending on the success of this event, it may begin to receive some more billing as the premier event in the future.
I know of a few people who will be playing in events out there this and good luck to them and any others who will be playing. Hope to see you names in the standings, and hopefully one our group will have a spotlight on them one of these days.
If you had $10,000 of absolutely disposable, non-need, just for poker income to spend during the 6 weeks of the WSOP, how would you spend it? Would you take all $10,000 and plop it down for the Main Event? Would you play $1,500 events, nightly $200 events, side games, satellites etc.?
Personally, I would probably play some of the $1,500-$3,000 events, play some $500 to $200 side tournaments, probably play some cash games and satellites as well, I might even play the $1,060 satellite for the main event. If I happened to hit one of the games, I would very seriously consider playing in the Main Event at that point. The biggest issue I have with the main event now, is just the sheer size of the field. You are talking 8,800 people and 7 days - only 2 days of actual play, before you get to day 3. The one alluring factor still is the $10K in starting chips and 2 hour blind rounds + the fact that blind rounds towards the end of day 2 start to really progress slowly, doubling only every 6 hours. This would be the hard part about saying no to that, and I eventually might just say go for it. Of course all this is assuming you actually have the time to do it. Imagine ... 7 days completely committed to being in Vegas and possibly not even cashing in the event! So you're looking at playing 3 days of poker, 8 actual days to just find out if you cash. Now - don't know how many of you have been to Vegas, but 8 days in that city might just kill me ... I think if the drinking and gambling didn't, laying by the pool in the summertime taking in the scenery would go a long ways towards greatly increasing chances of skin cancer.
One of the issues they have seemed to start to address is the amount of the buy-in. $10,000 for the Main Event, in my opinion, should be bumped up. Maybe not to $20,000, but at least to $15,000. Most of the players qualify through satellites and such, so it would probably only cut a percentage of those down. I understand the nostalgia of anybody can win and it's always been $10,000, but we're now talking 37 years that the buy-in has been $10,000 - inflation wise, the buy-in is about 1/10 of what it was in 1970, thus the large field.
This year however, they implemented a $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event. That's alternating rounds of limit Hold-em, Omaha, Razz, Stud, and Stud hi-lo, with the final table being played NL Hold-em. I think most of the professionals believe that this is probably the true test of who actually is the best poker player in the world. So depending on the success of this event, it may begin to receive some more billing as the premier event in the future.
I know of a few people who will be playing in events out there this and good luck to them and any others who will be playing. Hope to see you names in the standings, and hopefully one our group will have a spotlight on them one of these days.
posted by Corey Eslinger at 10:37 AM
2 comments
