Penny-ante tournies

[peterbirks]

And so the WSOP approaches. But, as with the degradation of silver coins in centuries gone by, so the allure of a WSOP "event" that is just like the event that went before it yesterday (currently on day 2) or the day before that (currently at the final table) tends to pall. Ironically, a bracelet is harder to win now than it was back in the days of three weeks of tournaments, some of which had fewer than 30 entrants. As recently as 2003 there was a single-day Ace-to-Five triple draw tournament with about 45 entries (Men The Master won it). But the same-after-same nature of these tournaments, plus the sheer number of them, seems to make the winning of a bracelet les of an "event".

Except in one case this year. I've said that nothing attracts me less than the prospect of an eight-day tournament in Las Vegas's high summer, fighting 8,000 other players and Harrah's corporate mindfuck in an attempt to win enough money to tell the world to piss off.

However, I am mildly tempted to play my own cash spin-up with $1,000 (say, starting at $30-$60 and working up to $300-$600) in an attempt to get the $50,000 needed to enter the HORSE tournament. Why? Well, because this is the real "big one". It will also get some excellent TV coverage, mainly because all the big names will be in there, and it will have fewer entrants (although those who are there are likely to be good). TV coverage is both good and bad. Fame is not something devoutly to be desired, but in metagaming terms it has a lot of plusses.

And it would also be fun, which this year's $10,000 madhouse most definitely won't be.

I hope that the $50K HORSE event becomes recognized as the "big one". This could be the only year that satellites are not offered for it left, right and centre. It could be my one big chance to play in a proper tournament at a high level with proper opponents, and to have a laugh at the same time. Although the $25K NLHE events are similar in nature, the good thing about the HORSE event is that most of those players whom I would cross the street to avoid will likely be absent, since they never learnt to play anyting but Hold Em.

Hell, I can't play 7-Stud high-low to save my life, but at least I have played it (as well as Razz, which I seem to have a good record at).

Sod these cowboy satellite-stuffed events. I think it has to be $50K minimums from now on. :-)

PJ

Comments

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough we almost have the same viewpoint! On some of it!

I am going out this year to play the Razz event and to have a good old fashioned spin up in the cash and the satellites and see where that leaves me.

However, and don't take this as a personal comment, I think your post amplifies the reason why satellites can be good, against all the +/- EV er's out there that complain about the extra juice etc.

You see, you may well find yourself parlayed up into the $300/600 game with a nose bleed as $50k comes your way but then I have doubts (slap me down if I am wrong) that you could physically take 50k over to the cash desk and donk it up in a game where there will be little dead wood and lots of players making very few mistakes. Again, this isn't character assaination time, exactly the same happens to lots of people that make $10k online but then don't follow through into the main event. Mindests that struggle to come to terms with a $500 hit at 5/10 usually don't then suddenly start ponying up for monster buy-in events.

For this reason alone, sats can be good because you don't have the option to chicken out and stop yourself.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

It's strange that you should say this, Simon, because it did cross my mind. But it wasn't so much the ponying up the 50K (if I got that far). It was the moving from, say, a 10K win at 30-60 into the 50-100 or 100-200, knowing that the odds would be against me making the 50K.

If I had the 50K, I think that I could lay it down on the table (well, transfer it by wire from wherever) because, and I know that this sounds weird, there would be the return of me saying that I'd done it. Just as "the experience" of playing in the WSOP 10K event is, for some people, worth the 10K, so it would be for me in the HORSE event.

The real difficulty would be at that 10K tipping point, and I thought to myself that the best way to go about it would be to take out the original 1K stake (so at least you wouldn't finish up down on the deal) and step right into the biggest game that you could find, so that you would either reach the 50K or go bust in a spectacularly short time.

But, I take your point about the satellites. If you find yourself chickening out, then the "no choice satellite" might be the way to go. However, I haven't seen many satellites for this one flying around.

The problem for me, of course, is that I reckon I have more chance spinning it up to 50K in ever-bigger cash games than from winning a seat in a satellite marathon!

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

Peter,

you might not be aware of it, but your photo appears on the inside back page of the latest Card Player Europe, July 2006 edition. The caption makes no mention of you and merely states 'The Ladies European Championship welcome party. Kevin O'Connell, centre, with Leona Marsdden and Nikki Newman, right'.

DY

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen many satellites for this one flying around.

Not a lot of online sites spread Razz, which could be a clue. I haven't looked, but I'll bet Full Tilt will be looking to put a player or two into the $50K. Given that they're the only site of any size where you can play HORSE - and jolly good fun it is too - I'd have thought they'd be trumpeting this rather more.

PokerStars are considering adding Razz to the mix, but it's not very high up their priority list, according to Lee Jones. I wouldn't mind them spreading HOSE or SHOE or HOES or whatever in the meantime, although it wouldn't be the same without some Razz madness.

Whatever, the $10K will still be the main TV event because of (a) the prize money and (b) the networks' belief that NLHE is the Cadillac of poker. But I'll be more interested in the $50K because of the interest to be had watching good players play a mixed game in tournament conditions. Hell, I'd like to watch the registration desk as the punters queue to pony up a HORSE fee.

Mike

[andy-ward-uk.livejournal.com]

Here is a very good 7C8 tournament piece :

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/articles/03/02.html

He's dead right too. When the limits get up, HIGH HANDS.

While I'm here it's still not clear whether the $50K HORSE final table will still be HORSE or (slightly defeating the point IMO) NLHE for TV.

Andy.

[jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com]

It will also get some excellent TV coverage

I fear I am not convinced of this. TV likes hold 'em because it is easy to televise and explain in a way that at least the E and, to a lesser extent, the O of HORSE are difficult to follow.

I hope that the $50K HORSE event becomes recognized as the "big one".

Perhaps this might depend on what the prize pool is. It seems reasonable to guess that they can expect at least 50 entries, but probably fewer than 500. Should the prize pool ever overtake the $10k NLSE main event then I dare say it ought to get major recognition; other than that, it would take a major stunt like declaring it a winner-takes-all event (or, at least, nominally winner-take-all but in practice I'm sure there would be some sort of chop arranged) to get major attention.

There was going to be a $10,000,000 buy-in event, but it didn't happen (http://www.pokerlistings.com/potential-recordsetting-poker-tourney-cancelled-6636). Larry Flynt hosted the Hustler Cup which was a $125,000 buy-in Stud event. Eight players bought in (including the Flynt) and it was due to be winner-takes-all, but after two days of play there were only two players left so they quit the game with the current chip positions. More of a freezeout cash game then a tournament, perhaps.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I think that TV likes "known faces" better than it likes Hold 'em. I suspect that a considerable section of the audience know virtually nothing of the rules, so they might as well be dealing Chinese Poker so long as Matusow is facing Hellmuth and Brunson.

Once the prize money exceeds $1m, I don't think it matters much to the ordinary viewing Joe. It just becomes "a lot of money". I'm fairly sure that the first prze will be more than a million.

It's a bit worrying that they might make the final televised section NLHE, but I can see what's going through their heads. If the last hand was split kings beating a busted low in SS8OB, the atmosphere might not be the same.

PJ

TV Poker

[geoffchall.livejournal.com]

I think there are two audiences out there. There are the poker junkies for whome these strange names mean something and who do actually want to watch the niceties of play. I presume they (and you) juse want to scream and throw things at the set when you get these 'celebrity player' type games, in which ex-footballers waste their stack on any old rubbish.

But the bigger demographic has to be the non-poker-playing masses who watch for the drama. I'd have to put me in this lump because although I know what's going on, I don't care enough about the percentages. And we are watching for train wrecks. From a televisual pov we really want to see multiply-contested hands in which all participants think they have the thing sewn up, but we know that they don't. So a hand where Fred's pocket aces are joined by the guy who flopped a bizarre open-in-two places straight and the lunatic who just happens to luck a flush on the river is great TV, even if it's terrible play.

I've often thought of applying this we-know-what's-coming idea to a gameshow format like Deal or No Deal. If the viewers knew what was in the box of the contestant, wouldn't that make better TV?
(Reply to this)