#667 – Rebuys: WSOP Nixes, Bub Dishes

As you may have noted from this Blog or the World Series web site, the 2009 WSOP schedule is out and Harrah’s has eliminated rebuy events. This includes the No-Limit Deuce-to-Seven and Pot-Limit Omaha events, which have both run annually since 1986.

Howard Lederer, who is on the Players Advisory Committee, hosted the first FTOPS event last week and was asked about the change. The player posing the question opined that it was a case of Harrah’s fixing something that wasn’t broken. I thought Howard’s response was interesting and thought-provoking, so I wrote it down and am posting it here.

“It was very broken. The WSOP is not just another tournament. And bracelets are not just another trophy. When a player dies, the first thing they report in their obituary is the number of bracelets won.”

“Se, we simply have to level the playing field. It is not fair for one player to enter an event with no rebuys in his pocket and another player is willing to rebuy 30 times. It gives the guy with the rebuys a much better chance to win. That cheapens the value of the bracelets in my opinion.”

As was clear by Howard’s statement, it was purely a matter of his opinion, not necessarily the policy or conclusions of either Harrah’s or the Players Advisory Committee. Though I generally regard Howard Lederer’s opinions very highly, and I think he is correct about the tremendous value of The Bracelet, I’m not sure I agree with his logic here. And I say that despite the fact that I think it’s fine that Harrah’s eliminated rebuys.

I think there were several good reasons for eliminating rebuy events. First, they are an administrative nightmare and an invitation for corruption. Rebuys aren’t bought at the cage and recorded through the casino-contol and state-regulated methods of handling money. I suppose there’s some way for a crooked employee to fudge the number of entries and pocket some, but it has to be difficult. But that’s not necessarily the case with rebuys.

Especially in the $1,000 rebuy events, there are up to 1,000 players, meaning 100 tables – that’s half of the giant Amazon Room and involves numerous floor personnel. So how do we know if there are, say 1,588 rebuys? Are the same protections in place to assure that no one of the floor isn’t pocketing a few of the rebuy chips or the money paid for rebuy chips or the receipts? It seems like there are numerous opportunties for schemes to create tax fraud or skim from the prize pool or improperly introduce chips into play in the rebuy event (or warehouse them for other events).

The World Series dodged a bullet with that business about the extra chips brought into play at the Main Event in 2006. That was the first year of the current regime and it would be a gigantic blow to all the integrity and goodwill Jeffrey Pollack and his staff have built to have a similiar situation – one that questions the honesty and fiduciary responsibility of Harrah’s and its employees, as well as the integrity of the events – arise again.

I think the rebuy events were an invitation to a scandal. Good riddance. Harrah’s dodged a bullet if you asked me.

I’m not aware of instances in which the legitimacy of the winners has been questioned – though maybe Lederer knows something we don’t – but, again, opportunities abound. All tables are not created equal in the rebuy events. Though your results always depend to a possibly undesirable amount on the table draw, this is magnified in rebuy events.

From a table with several players rebuying every hand, there can emerge a chip leader with an edge no type of table draw in a non-rebuy event can duplicate. In addition, what about the possibility of collusion, especially in the smaller field events?

Say there are three friends at the same table. They could decide to keep throwing away their chips and rebuying so that one of them builds a huge stack. Based on how crazy those rebuy events operate at the beginning, it might not even raise eyebrows when Player A raises (with his Q-Q) and Player B shoves all-in (with his 6-5o). All-in with 6-5o and nobody makes a peep? Sure – how else would players be making 15, 20, 25 rebuys in the first couple hours if they didn’t make plays like that?

Even without the nefarious aspect – letting one player accumulate all their rebuy chips – three friends playing crazy and rebuying constantly can tilt their table to their advantage.

I don’t know anything about any of the winners of these events over the past few years. But the events themselves start with a bizarro attitude that doesn’t exactly fit the image of the World Series. There are numerous well-known players who play rebuy events in a fashion that suggests they’re drunk or don’t care about the money or the results. I suppose that’s not good for the World Series when people hear about players doing that. (And yeah, I’m sure they claim there’s some “strategy” behind it. But if they’re right and that’s the proper way to play a rebuy event, that probably has negative implications for the image of the World Series.)

So I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion that the World Series is better off without rebuy events. But that “unlevel playing field” idea? I’m not so sure. At least a few guys can use the money they’re saving from elimination of rebuy events to enter this year’s $40,000-buy-in No Limit Hold ‘Em event at the start of the Series. Or to enter more of those new $10,00-buy-in “championship” events that Harrah’s created in 2008.

I’m not even against those high-buy-in events. But in poker, the commodity is money and the race for bracelets is automatically tilted in favor of those with more of it. That’s fine; I don’t think it should (or realistically could) be any other way.

We should recognize the simple fact that AFFORDING to get to the starting line (and get there more often) plays an important role in your likelihood of making it to the finish line. (Your chance is zero percent if you can’t afford to play, plus the players who play all the high-buy-in events probably have a greater chance than similarly talented players who can really only afford the lower buy-in, higher-traffic events.)

Again, let me emphasize that I’m not opposed to those high-buy-in events. Quite the opposite: the players who can afford $10,000 and up are disproportionately the best players (or at least the best known). Having elite fields of the top players – while still being open to anyone who can post the buy-in – is good for poker, good for Harrah’s, good for TV, etc. etc. etc. Because of those events (and crazy side-bets), the top high-stakes players remain interested and motivated in playing WSOP events – even the big-field events.

I think somewhere in my reasons for disliking WSOP rebuy events are adequate justification for eliminating them as well as some of what Lederer was getting at about the integrity of the events. But it’s dangerous to drag the money aspect in it. Poker is incredibly democratic in that anyone with the entry fee can play for a world championship with the best players on earth. That’s not the same thing, however, as recognizing that bankroll is an advantage in the bankroll race, with or without rebuys.

[N.B. - One of Howard's bracelets was in the Deuce-to-Seven rebuy event, which is ironic now that he's expressing the view that rebuys threaten to cheapen the value of bracelets. Incidentally, I heard second-hand but pretty reliably so I'm not going to the trouble of confirming it that Lederer did NOT go rebuy crazy in his Deuce-to-Seven win, adding-on and rebuying either zero times or one time.]

[N.B. - I completely agree with Howard on the value of The Bracelet. And for most poker players, it would be the first item in their obituary. WPT wins are starting to take that cache, but those are $10,000 (and up), where EVERY World Series bracelet is potentially a life highlight. Winning a bracelet in a $1,500-buy-in event is probably considered more of an achievement than winning, say, a $5,000 Bellagio Cup Event.]

[N.B. - When Harold "Hal" Kant passed away last October, his PLO (with rebuys) bracelet from 1987 wasn't mentioned until the 19th paragraph. Kant was for three decades the principal lawyer and general counsel to the Grateful Dead. But Howard's point is probably generally true about World Series bracelets being a big deal.]

• No Related Post