WSOP FINAL TABLE - the debate rages
By Oliver Chubb
The World Series as we know it was born in 1971. Since then, player numbers have swelled, events have been added and the tournament relocated, but the format has remained largely unchanged. The pattern so far has been familiar: poker-mania in Vegas builds during the preceding events until a champion is crowned in the early hours of the summer series’ last day. The following morning the arena is disassembled, the gathered poker masses go their separate ways and the build-up to the following summer begins.
Not any more.
As of 2008, the main event will be played down to the final nine players on July 14th, at which point the tournament will be halted. With the players for the final table decided, the poker world will enter hype-building mode for four months. ESPN will run a series of shows with footage of the tournament so far, with focus on the nine surviving players. As a television event, nine fortunate amateurs and anonymous pros playing for the title might lack the draw of other sporting events; by the time the players reconvene in Las Vegas on November 9th to play their final table, however, ESPN is hoping to have built enough of a back-story to captivate the television audience.
Some of the poker world is already up-in-arms about the change. Unlike the operators of other major sporting events, Caesar’s Entertainment (the new corporate identity, as of last month, of Harrah’s Entertainment) gets to run the WSOP and sell its television rights without having to stump up the prize money. They even take a cut of our entry fees to pay for costs and to line their pockets. “They’ve got such a good deal,” say the antagonists of the reform, “that messing with the format to boost ratings is just greedy.” This seems like a knee-jerk reaction; after all, it’s not a zero sum game. What’s good for Caesar’s Entertainment and ESPN isn’t necessarily bad for “us”.
The poker bubble has unquestionably burst and not just because of UIGEA (the US’s dastardly Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act of 2006). Last year, entries dropped in the World Series for only the second time in its history because of this new law, but television ratings are also down and TV shows are being cancelled. This is indicative of a change in sentiment inexplicable by the Act alone. The tournament scene reached a peak of profitability a couple of years ago on the back of the influx of new players created by the spike in poker’s popularity. If a change in WSOP structure is what is needed to rekindle the public’s interest and encourage new players into the game we, as players ourselves, should be looking to accommodate the change. It is no surprise that the change in format has been approved by the Players Advisory Council.
Furthermore, the nine players themselves can use these four months to leverage their position with potential sponsors; they can shop around for the highest sponsorship package to wear a site’s logo on their shirt. Unfortunately, if a player qualifies online, he may already be contracted to represent the site. If he is a big-name pro, he may already have a sponsor. Of the nine players reaching the final table, it may be that only one or two are in a position to negotiate.
The only group of players that really have a cause for complaint are the established and successful tournament pros. The change in structure will level the playing field for the final table. Any recreational players and satellite qualifiers will now have four months to train, read and take lessons on final table NLH strategy. Four months of solid study can revolutionise a player’s game. As a result, the standard of play at the final table should be the highest since before the poker boom.
Of some concern, too, is immigration and the IRS. The majority of players in Vegas in July will be on non-work visa waivers. Although they are playing in the ‘main event’, they are not in the country to seek financial gain. Non-US amateur players have previously been allowed to claim 100% of their prize and handle their own tax authorities as they saw fit. Come November, when their face has been on ESPN for four months and in the poker literature, their claim that they are not entering the country to seek financial gain may be a little harder to substantiate. Although Caesars’ lawyers have promised to assist in the arrangement of entertainment visas, if even one of the players is refused entry to the US, or the IRS decides to withhold part of even one player’s payout, the new format will have been a disaster.
Only time will tell how the new structure goes down with the community at large. Sure, the town won’t be packed with most of the poker tournament community in November. There won’t quite be the same crescendo of poker frenzy culminating in the final river card of the summer. But if it means that nine lucky people can live the dream for four months instead of 12 hours, and if it keeps our game in the public eye for a few more years yet, it’s fine by me.
| Oliver Chubb |
 |
Posted by Oliver Chubb on May 10th, 2008 in Poker, High Stakes Poker, WSOP.
Comments: 11
Play Poker
Play Poker Against Oliver Chubb - sign up now to play in the monthly tournament with all Bigger Deal's writers
Comments
Comment from Ianto
Time: May 11, 2008, 2:03 pm
I think I’ll just stay out in Vegas on my original visa, living off the 9th place payout, and then play the final table in November.
Probably won’t ever come back to ol’Blighty.
So whilst the bubble may have deflated some (are bubbles ever “flated?”), it’s far from having burst. The WSOP Main Event winner will still have the biggest payday of any sportsman in the world this year.
And long may it continue.
Comment from UK Poker Player
Time: May 11, 2008, 2:55 pm
Hey - thanks for the update on the World Poker Event.
I can;t wait to see the footage of the tournament, it should be pretty great. It’s too bad they waited so long to show the final, but I guess the build-up is there, for me anyway! Keep the updates of the tournament coming,
Comment from Anthony Holden
Time: May 12, 2008, 8:43 am
Never has the salutation ‘See you at the final table!’ signalled the beginning of quite so long (if not necessarily beautiful) a friendship… Ianto - if you stay in Vegas more than three months on your visa waiver, you’ll be double-breaking its terms, i.e. US law; next time you leave the States, you won’t be allowed back in again - even if you are a poker multi-millionaire… Me, I’m worried that the shock of reaching the final table, plus the intensity of a four-month crash course in the latest final-table / short-handed techniques, on top of all those media interviews and discussions with financial advisers on how to keep / invest / above all spend all that first-place prize money, not to mention the weight of the diamond-encrusted bracelet, might all prove too much for my aging (if huge) heart. Anyway - nice problem, as they say, to have. Let’s talk it over (do a deal?) on July 14…
Comment from Johnny Hughes
Time: May 12, 2008, 1:19 pm
Collusion is almost impossible to detect if the players are half way good. With collusion comes a non-aggression pact. If two or three players are not trying to knock each other out, the advantage is tremendous. In tournament bridge, the Italian Blue team dominated international tournament for many years by cheating with signals. If you give folks a chance, they cheat! In the old days, Amarillo Slim, Doyle Brunson, and Sailor Roberts played out of the same bankroll. We called that playing “top hand.” How often have people been caught playing partners in tournaments or cash games? Not often. Many years back, I have “thrown in with” another pro in a big cash game. You rarely both get in the same pot. If you did you are putting up two to one money. In no-limit hold ‘em, that is like a partner is a three-legged, tow-sack race. They get in each other’s way.
For anyone who hits the final table will be contacted by teachers, preachers, cheaters, ad agencies,
Comment from Wwonka
Time: May 12, 2008, 8:20 pm
I think the Idea behind this is good. I think 4 months is too long a break.
Comment from Oliver Chubb
Time: May 14, 2008, 12:00 am
Tony’s concerns over a US immigration ban are not as far-fetched as they seem. I was once banned from the US for 3 months for being “cheeky” to a customs official in Fort Lauderdale. I was in transit to join a CardPlayer Cruise so fortunately the ban started the moment I left US soil. I fear I was one more raised eyebrow from missing the boat.
Johnny, I agree that collusion is always a concern in the late stages of a big tournament and never more so than when players have had four months to be tempted and to hatch their plans. However with hole-card cameras and the whole poker world watching, this would be a foolish (if rather profitable) arena in which to attempt a caper. I’m pretty confident that the play will be fair. Even if there are two or more corruptible players in the final 9, I doubt they could risk trying to find out about each other. If I am so lucky to be one of the nine and one of my opponents approaches about a possible collusive arrangement, I’ll be straight on the phone to Jack Effel. I will gain more by having his stack frozen and his prize money withheld than by agreeing to pass the odd blind.
Comment from Joe King
Time: May 14, 2008, 12:23 pm
Thanks for the insights ‘Olls’. I can see the advantage of the break period, but it does seem too long. Wouldn’t a month or so be enough to hype the event? Surely 4 months risks losing the interest/momentum generated by the action so far? I can see a lot of the casual fans tuning out after a while.
Anyway, keep up the good work!
Comment from Fatty
Time: May 14, 2008, 1:10 pm
If a player is lucky enough to make it to the final table but is perhaps only a few blinds away from busting out, considering all the extra trouble they would have to go through and the additional expense of flights, is it possible that they choose not to come back for the final event?
Comment from Dieter
Time: May 15, 2008, 10:39 am
Fatty, Harrah’s is giving the final 9 an all-expenses paid trip for 2 back to the Rio for November. Also, how many people do you think will want to give up their 15 minutes of TV fame? Especially if they can get some sponsors to put up some extra money.
Comment from Johnny Hughes
Time: May 17, 2008, 2:15 pm
Ollie, per chance you are naive. Bill Smith, WSOP Champ of 1985, three final tables, often played partners with James “Tennesse Longoodie” Roy. I have played partners with each of them. You don’t do anything too fishy, given the web cam. You fold marginal hands, staying out of your partner’s pots. When it is down to someone all-in, people legally collude to check it down now. If you had a decision whether to re-raise before the flop with a pair of nines or even Big Slick, your decision might be based on whether your partner had called. Partners do not want to be in the same pots except on special occasions, such as knocking out a short stack, which is legal. Signals would be stupid, given the video. A major reason to partner up is insurance. One of you may get lucky.
I run into partners in casinos. In limit, they are vicious. In no-limit, I can handle them if I know about them. When they are out of the pot, they are too interested in their partner. They can’t help stealing meaningful glances, like secret lovers. Often they are husband and wife, both from the same Indian tribe, Lesbians, etc. Birds of a feather cheat together. And if the final table has three Las Vegas pros who know each other and see each other often???
Comment from Oliver Chubb
Time: June 3, 2008, 2:31 pm
Johnny, I am sure there is some room for agreement between us. No doubt, players will gang up on the short stack and check down hands in an attempt to bust him but each player is acting in a selfishly chip-maximizing way. Without any explicit agreement to alter their play to aid the other, this is neither immoral nor illegal. Indeed this type of tacit collusion is common at the poker table and all across the corporate world.
Of concern really is the possibility of an explicit agreement being forged between July 14th and November 9th. As you say, two or three of the final tables players may be casual acquaintances, but my position is that there are enough deterrents to make a formal (cheating) agreement unlikely. For one, any agreement would not be enforceable after the event and the sums involved make the incentive to renege huge. After the main event of 2006, Crispin Leyser was able to sue Jamie Gold for half his winnings and use text messages and audio records as evidence. Any attempt to use similar methods to confirm the existence of an agreement to collude and pool winnings would be futile. The process itself would invalidate both players’ claim to any winnings.
In the days of Bill Smith and Tennessee Longoodie, a player’s word was, I’m sure, as good as a contract. But these are different times. In my experience of many of today’s Vegas regulars, a player’s bottom line is worth more than his word.
Write a comment
Oliver checks these comments and will reply to them on a regular basis.