1
#472 – WSOP Notebook #44 – What I Saw at the World Series, Part I
This is the first part of a four-part essay on my evaluation of the 2008 World Series of Poker.
Part I – The Starting Premise
OK, we’re evaluating an entire World Series of Poker, right? Let’s start from a framework of how things looked at the beginning, from the outside. I’ll summarize the state of poker, the state of WSOP leadership, and the state of tournament professionals. Then we can compare how the Series played out against that.
The State of Poker – It’s been 1 3/4 years since the passage of the UIGEA and the effect of that plus related actions (specifically the prosecution of payment processors under pre-existing laws) has been profound. First, a lot of people aren’t playing online, which means they aren’t getting into the World Series or tournament poker. Second, payment processors have been chased out of business and a lot of potential replacements are probably scared. So some players have stopped playing online and others who might want to play haven’t started. This has an effect both directly (on entries to the Main Event) and indirectly (on general interest in big-time tournament poker). Third, poker advertising has been chased off TV.
The whole TV thing is a gigantic problem and many poker players aren’t aware of it. This was obvious when the WSOP announced it was separating the Main Event final table from the rest of the Series, in a clear move to spur interest. Rating are flat or down. ESPN isn’t jumping up and down anymore about its great ratings because the market is being saturated. A lot of those other made-for-TV events are falling off the air. Celebrity Poker Showdown? Gone. Poker Superstars on Fox Sports? High Stakes Poker? For that matter, where is the World Poker Tour?
Poker players aren’t seeing it because they still play online and either still watch on TV or don’t watch and haven’t realized that’s part of the problem. It’s a big deal and a big concern, however, and has ripple effects on every aspect of the game.
Finally, the economy is against poker. High oil prices have made travel by car and plane expensive. It’s natural that every business that depends on travel feels a pinch.
The State of the Leadership – Harrah’s regime had improved considerably in 2007, its second year of operating the Series. A lot of people were skeptical but I think the following things were clearly demonstrated: (a) They weren’t afraid to try new things; (b) they weren’t afraid to admit mistakes; (c) they listened to criticism and tried to use the Players Advisory Committee constructively; and (d) they wanted to make money (of course) but were trying to strike a balance between their capitalistic goals and at least a perception of fairness. Opinions might differ on what kind of job they did in striking that balance, but they dispelled notions that they were in it solely to squeeze as much money out as they could.
But there were still question marks going into the 2008 Series. Harrah’s had been sold to private equity firms and no one knew whether the WSOP leadership would remain or how the ownership change would otherwise affect the operating priorities of the Series. There was also that matter of delaying the final table until November. A lot of people were criticizing the move (though not me) and it was anybody’s guess whether players would generally perceive Jeffrey Pollack & Co. as (a) worthy stewards of the WSOP brand; (b) honest merchants trying to improve; or (c) dangerous and insensitive incompetents.
The State of Professional Poker – On the positive side, the top pros have been increasingly playing and caring about the World Series for the last few years. Whether it’s professional pride or bigger prize pools or ancillary opportunities or prop-bet fever, the division between the “tournament pros” and the “high-stakes pros” has practically disappeared. The World Series of Poker has truly become a pageant of the best players of every type.
Then there’s the question mark about the “high-stakes pros”: who and where are they? It used to be pretty easy to list the “stars” of poker: bracelet winners, WPT performers, the $1,000-$2,000-and-above crowd at the Bellagio, the players in the Larry Flynt game, and some less well-known but dangerous players in the top games in L.A., Atlantic City, and Europe. The spread of big tournaments and the big games available online has thrown it all in the air. Bobby’s Room is empty a lot of nights. And when it’s running, are the kings and queens the giant mixed-game players, or the biggest NLHE/PLO players? And what about the guys multi-tabling on Full Tilt at $200-$400 PLO and the like? Some had never been in a casino – hell, some weren’t OLD ENOUGH to enter a casino.
It all comes down to a simple question, yet impossible to answer: who really counts?
Finally, there’s the negative about the giant size of the Series. Even by defining the “big players” liberally, the sheer number of entries always threatens to marginalize the best players. This has been most clear over the last few years in the Main Event, but there’s always a threat – which I think the WPT has grappled with pretty regularly – that there will be a big poker show (and the WSOP is many, many big poker shows) and there won’t be anyone at the end worth watching.
That’s the way I was looking at the World Series before it started. As a player and enthusiast, I was excited. But as someone who really benefits from the broad perception of the World Series’ “success”, I had plenty about which to be concerned.
I was hopeful, but worried. A few years ago, everyone wanted to jump on the poker bandwagon. Now, my sense is that the same crowd – which I can’t discount because they buy books and magazines and read blogs and start online poker accounts and start entering poker tournaments live and online – is looking for a reason to bury poker. Would this be the year – regardless of the merits – they found one?
