Videos
It’s Time for a Change by Mike Sexton
I think it’s time for casinos that host big buy-in tournaments, such as WPT events, and the players in them to take a look at what’s happening out there today. Due to “player demand,” events have gotten longer since players are starting with deep stacks and friendlier structures. The result is that fields are getting tougher and smaller. And due to the large number of big buy-in tournaments these days, if something isn’t done about it, I see that trend continuing.
This will certainly be the case until online poker gets regulated – and when that happens, we’ll see another poker boom. Big buy-in live events will expand their numbers substantially because so many people will be able to qualify online for $50 or $100. But that’s “if and when,” and we need to worry about right now.
On a side note, one of the biggest myths in poker is about deep stack tournaments. It doesn’t matter how many chips you start with; what matters is the size of the blinds in proportion to the size of your chip stack. But this article is not about deep stack tournaments; it’s about why event attendance is declining in big buy-in events, what to do to about it, and why it will benefit both players and casinos to change the current trend.
You lose value when you shut out the players you want in the tournaments, such as the businessman who cannot take a week off work and amateurs who can’t be away from their families for a week. And cutting down the buy-ins at some events may actually increase the prize pool because of the larger number of entrants. Just look at the recent WPT events at Borgata and Foxwoods. Borgata had a $3,500 buy-in and was the largest field in WPT history with 1,042 players, creating a $3.5 million prize pool.
Foxwoods had a $10,000 buy-in with 240 players, creating a $2.4 million prize pool. Generally speaking, larger fields provide more value for players and, obviously, more people in the casino can only be better for the casino. An additional value of lesser buy-in tournaments is that you can run a lot more satellites, providing more people an opportunity to play and increasing value in the tournament.
How can we increase fields and create more value for the player? The first step that needs to be taken is to shorten the events. With the exception of the $25,000 buy-in WPT Championship, I’d suggest cutting every event on the WPT back to four days – and just as importantly, start them on a Saturday (with the final table on Tuesday).
In my opinion, this would be a win-win situation for everybody. Amateurs can play on the weekend and would only miss one day of work (two if they make the final table, but that would be an extremely beneficial day off for them). The casinos will get more players in their events, which would have much more value. And you don’t have to play ungodly hours the first three days. You do have to cut back starting chips from 30,000 to 20,000, cut levels back to 45 minutes, or eliminate five or six levels along the way. By doing this, pro players will actually earn more in the long-run, as value in the tournaments would increase substantially.
I’ve been to every event in the history of the WPT. At least 80% to 90% of the time, the top players get eliminated in a race or a bad beat – and it doesn’t matter if it’s a three-day tournament or a week-long tournament. As a player, if you knew you were going to race for your money near the end of a tournament, wouldn’t you rather have that race at the end of three days rather than at the end of six days? Wouldn’t you like to have an extra few days to enjoy life?
The argument some players will make is, “Because of the long structure, I was able to survive and put myself in a position to have a race at the end of six days.” That argument has some merit, but I don’t believe it outweighs the added value in tournaments of allowing more amateurs to play.
Players and casino management must recognize that shortening the days of play will benefit everyone. Decreasing buy-ins at some venues would be beneficial as well. For this plan to succeed, however, it’s going to take a strong recommendation by the WPT, the vision of casino management (which shouldn’t be hard since they’ll make more juice and get more people in their casino), and the support of top players with leadership that see the light, especially those in the youth brigade who will help lead the charge.
Where’s Nike when you need them? “Let’s Do It!”
Want the latest poker news in your twitter feed? Follow PokerNewsDaily on Twitter.
Andy Bloch December 27th, 2010 at 1:57 am
I agree completely Mike. There needs to be faster structures early, at least until the money bubble is looming. Another option is the Bellagio structure where players can start as late as midway through day 2.
While “deep stack” might be a good marketing term, very few of the players who put down $10k cash several times a year are fooled by the term. I’ve talked to upper management at some casinos who hate deep stack tournaments but feel they have to keep offering them for marketing purposes. I think they’re wrong.
If it’s a question of marketing, what’s needed is better marketing begging with a new term to help promote a return to faster structures early. Something like “Improved player-friendly structure” or “Classic championship structure”.
Also, casinos and tours can offer multiple structures of tournaments and let people choose. The online sites do it, and so can brick-and mortar casinos. Adjust the casino’s rake accordingly (lower for faster tournaments) and I think you’ll see a lot of players choosing the faster structure. Or, give players extra comps or other bonuses for playing the faster structure.
This idea, of having some tournaments with slow structures and some with fast, I’ve recommended to the WSOP. Let the WSOP and every other tournament know if you support the choice of faster tournaments because they won’t make any changes if they don’t see any demand.
The most extreme example of your point Mike is the WSOP main event. Many amateurs who can afford to put up $10k can’t play because they can’t afford the time — over a full week in Vegas (or multiple trips) just to get into the money. Ten years ago the WSOP got into the money at the end of day 2. I wouldn’t have played the first two WSOP main events I played, in 1997 & 1998, if it would have taken a week to get into the money. I’m sure there are many other players who would say the same thing.
The young players, most of whom play heavily on the Internet, should be the biggest supporters of faster structures. If you play online, when you bust out there’s always another game to play. If at any time during a tournament you’re playing at close to the same level that you’d play in a cash game or tournament on-line (after accounting for chip inflation), you’d be better off skipping that level because you could be multi-tabling online. Your time is more valuable not playing in the first few levels of a live tournament.
These days, it seems that tournament structures are being designed with no concern for the length of the tournament or the value of people’s time, both professional players and amateurs. Time should be one of the first concerns, not the last.