FULL TILT POKER BLOG

#399 – Worth the Wait – Part II of the WSOP Final Table Discussion

Posted by Editor | Filed under WSOP 2008

In my previous post, I described the plan to delay the WSOP Main Event Final Table to November and why I thought it was a good idea. I am not, however, surprised that it has received a lot of criticism.

Poker players like to complain.

One day a few months back, I received a mass e-mail from Jim McManus about a subject concerning his upcoming book. Next thing I knew, there were 40 e-mails from top players and writers about placing Stu Ungar’s record in major NLHE tournaments (10 wins in about 30 events). Right after the announcement last week about the delayed final table, people from McManus’s list started sending e-mails around giving their opinions about the plan.

I’ve divided the criticisms of the plan into five areas.

OPINION #1 – The delay will cause players to play differently, thereby interfering with the natural flow of the game.

Paradoxically, different people claimed opposent effects from the delay. One opinion was that these players were at their absolute peak going into the final table in mid-July. They’d hate to have to stop playing when they were running so well. The other opinion was that players would study and bring in coaches during the four-month interregnum, causing them to play different (and better) than they would have if the final table was played back in July.

If the delay improves the quality of play, how can that be a bad thing? Studying opponents, getting help from better players and experts – isn’t it a good thing if players do that? Granted, I’d prefer my own opponents dumb and clueless but poker has always thrived when the quality of play has improved.

In fact, I think the rush to complete the tournament can lead to some poor play at the final table. At the end of the WSOP last summer, I pointed out in this blog a few such examples, like players possibly messing up the math based on the number of zeroes following the bets and making (theoretically) indefensibly large pre-flop raises.

Most important, it’s the same for all players and this is known in advance so there’s nothing unfair. So what if the outcome is different than if the final table had been two days after they played down to nine? If the dealer cut the deck in a different spot, that could change the outcome too.

Besides, players are being well-compensated for the delay. It may take some time before the sponsorship opportunities develop but this could eventually become a bonanaza for the final-table players.
OPINION #2 – Bad things can happen during the delay to compromise the integrity of the result and the safety of the players.

This isn’t much more than speculation but some top pros in this e-mail group were spinning scenarios of collusion, extortion, frivolous lawsuits, kidnappings, and threats against families. Some of this was couched as “Maybe not in the U.S. but there are some rough places in the world.”

Cheating – The honesty of the result has to be beyond suspicion. But it’s not like the current structure of sort-of continuous play was designed for security.

I don’t see the delay as making collusion more likely. We’re talking about a couple of unaffiliated amateurs suddenly hooking up just because there’s more time to do it? The first dishonest player has to initiate contact with a stranger on the theory the stranger is more likely to cheat at the final table of the World Series of Poker than to turn in the initiator (which would probably improve the finish of the squealer). And then they are going to develop a cheating system that can evade detection in the most-watched, most-filmed, and most-scrutined poker game in history? With all their cards recorded for investigation?

This has got to be the last place an aspiring cheater would want to hold his coming-out party.

In addition, these players will be increasingly raking in the money regardless of their finish. The deals final-table players get from online sites should improve. Other advertisers should increasingly seek them out to wear their logos. Why try some risky cheating scheme with a stranger when you can get paid big money just for wearing some logos?

Danger to players – Playing for millions of dollars can motivate nuts and criminals to do some desperate things. But so does actually winning that money. Some of these scenarios simply haven’t happened to Moneymaker, Raymer, Hashem, et al., so why would it happen to their counterpants before they’ve even won the big prize?

As far as theatening players or otherwise trying to influence the outcome, who’s going to do that? There’s practically no betting interest in the Main Event. Does this ever happen in the Kentucky Derby or Indianapolis 500 or the Super Bowl, events with an interval sufficient for such mischief to occur and huge betting on the outcome? I don’t think so.

But I recognize that some of these scenarios have happened. Some guys tried to rob Greg Raymer at gunpoint. Jamie Gold was sued by someone who claimed he had a partnership to split his winnings. Why will such things be worse or different because of the delay before the final table?

Although the idea of delaying the final table is new to the World Series of Poker, it’s not unprecedented. The Poker Million, one of the biggest tournaments in Europe, last year had an elimination system that resulted in the final table being played long after the players had qualified. As far as I know, there weren’t any death theats, kidnapping of family members, or extortion plots.
OPINION #3 – Inconvenience.

Some people actually claimed that it seemed unreasonably inconvenient to make players show up a second time for the final table, especially if they came from far away. To me, this proves that poker players can complain about anything. This inconvenience – for which Caesars is footing the bill, by the way – applies to just 9 of the 5,000-10,000 players in the Main Event, and the ones to whom it does apply will be playing for millions of dollars and could score multiple five- and six-figure endorsement deals for their appearance on TV.

I believe most poker players will tough it out.
OPINION #4 – Death

It has been suggested that it would be unfair if a player died between making the final table in July and playing it in November. This is not likely and there are rules in place for dealing with it. It doesn’t seem like this should be a reason for rejecting an otherwise good idea for reviving poker’s popularity.
OPINION #5 – Dislike or distrust for Caesars/Rio/Jeffrey Pollack/The Man

There is an undercurrent to the criticism evidencing a latent dislike or distrust for the operators of the WSOP. How dare they dictate the schedule for our tournament? We’re playing for our own money and don’t get a cut of the TV money so why should we have to accept changes that help them make more money from TV?

As I explained in the last post, this presentation of the final table could someday make Caesars a lot of money and make the World Series of Poker more valuable, but it’s not going to do that in the short-term. It will also help the players by making poker more popular. But the criticism, however, raise a valid point: at what point, if any, will the operators of the World Series of Poker share the money they make from the broadcast of the tournament, which is owned and operated by Caesars but self-financed by the players? Poker’s increased popularity puts money in the pockets of players by the influx of new players but that’s different from someone getting rich off a product provided by people who don’t share in those profits.

In context, however, I think the some of the people accusing Caesars of getting fat off the World Series are overstating the case. First, this is supposed to be a profit-making venture for the operators. Second, the rake charged at the Series is not out of line with other major poker tournaments and may be less than others charge. Third, the corporate tie-in/marketing-the-brand end of the business is not currently the money-maker it was (or looked like it could be) a few years ago. I know they got a bundle from PartyPoker for putting its name on the felt, but that day has passed. I don’t know if the Miller Brewing deal is worth a lot of money; maybe it is. The other corporate sponsorship deals are generally not big-money deals. Maybe they’ll be big someday but mostly not now.

Still, with all the activity in deals and sponsors – the ceiling of the tournament room was plastered with banners from all the corporate partners – along with these changes designed for long-term profitability, it would be appropriate for the operators of the World Series to be more open about a narrow aspect of their finances: Do they intend ever to share sponsorship/TV money with players? What form will that take? At what point is it financially viable to give the players a cut? Where are we now financially compared with that future point?

Caesars could keep all the ancillary money forever. The players aren’t currently organized or equipped to fight about it. But if Jeffrey Pollack deserves the credit I’ve been giving him for looking out for the future of the World Series of Poker, he will use this occasion to clarify the future financial participation – or non-participation – by players in TV money or other money the operators make off the players’ product.

As an afterword, I want to note that moving the final table to November was not something Caesars did precipitously or without player input. This has been under consideration at least since last September (as I reported back then). And though it was proposed and adopted by Caesars, Jeffrey Pollack involved the Players Advisory Council (or is it Committee? I know it’s PAC) in the decision.

As I understand it, the PAC was consulted and its opinions were solicited (along with opinions on running all aspects of the Series, which led to ditching the tent and the practice of taking alternates, as well as upgrading the food service, among other changes). I was told by both sides that the PAC gave its input, was actively involved, and supported the plan.

Considering how poorly organized poker players are on matters that involve them collectively, the PAC is a pretty good group for providing player input. PAC members include, among others, Daniel Negreanu, Howard Lederer, Barry Greenstein, Chris Ferguson, Robert Williamson III, and Annie Duke. That doesn’t mean no one’s allowed to offer a contrary opinion. But it does mean that some people of high diligence, intelligence, and integrity looked at this carefully and approved it.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Be Sociable, Share!