The opinions in this editorial do not reflect the positions of the ownership or management of Poker News Daily.
With everything that is currently going on in the poker community – the two “chipgate” events, the ongoing battle regarding online gaming and poker, the fall of Bitcoin and its effects on internet gaming, the fans rushing the court after a huge win (whoops, that one doesn’t apply) – one of the issues that has been garnering the most focus from the biggest names in the game is that of the High Roller and Super High Roller tournaments. These tournaments, with buy-ins that range from $15,000 up to the $1 million “Big One for ONE DROP,” have become particularly popular of late due to the “notable names” that populate them. But they’ve also drawn derision from some due to the ways they allegedly “skew” important rankings and the factor that the play in these events may not be on the up-and-up.
Players such as Daniel Negreanu, Phil Hellmuth, Dan Shak, Mike Sexton, Jason Mercier and others have tossed out their two cents on the subject, normally during intelligent discussions on Twitter. While that debate hasn’t exactly drawn any conclusions, plenty of people are wondering what the future of such High Roller and Super High Roller events might be.
One organization that is rapidly gaining importance in the poker world, the Global Poker Index, actually broke the numbers down regarding the issue. In their breakdown, the GPI took their top 300 players and looked at the percentage of points that those players received from such tournaments. While it must be noted that the GPI caps point potential on these events at $20,000 (no further multipliers are applied no matter how many players or how high the buy-in), it also demonstrated that, overall, the “big names” in poker are still drawing a sizeable amount of their ranking from “normal” events.
Currently ranked #1 on the GPI, Negreanu has earned 92% of his points in events that have buy-ins less than $50,000. The numbers are even better for Marvin Rettenmaier, currently #3 on the GPI rankings, who has had 100% of his points come from those events. This seems to be a common theme throughout the rankings, although Phillip Gruissem (24%), Erik Seidel (33%) and Mike McDonald (21%) have benefitted the most from those tournaments over $50,000 (along with Rettenmaier, #23 Joe Serock needs mention; 98% of his total points on the GPI ranking have come from tournaments with buy-ins from $1000 to $11,000). At least on the GPI, the High Roller and Super High Roller tournaments have little to no effect.
The problem for some comes into the all-time money earners list. The top five on the Hendon Mob rankings for all-time earnings has several of the usual suspects who frequent the big money tournaments. Antonio Esfandiari, Phil Ivey, Negreanu, Seidel and Sam Trickett (#1-#5) have all had major scores from some High Roller event that have thrust them ahead of the pack. Arguably, you would have to go down to the 20th position (Men Nguyen) to find a player who hasn’t benefitted from the big money High Roller tournaments that profligate the poker world nowadays (T. J. Cloutier, the 22nd ranked player all time, also could be put in this mix).
With the 2014 “Big One” looking to pay off its champion with a potential $20 million windfall, these numbers may become even more skewed. You could go down to the 68th ranked player in all time earnings, Gavin Smith, who would have a chance to take over the top slot if he were to win the “Big One.” Thus, it is likely that this list will show some changes by the end of the summer and many believe that this isn’t good for the game due to its bastardization of the rankings.
The true problem for High Roller and Super High Roller events, however, isn’t in rankings…it’s in whether they are sustainable or not. At the recent Aussie Millions, the $100,000 and $250,000 Challenges were both rebuy tournaments which saw deep-pocketed players throw money around like sailors on shore leave. But the recent stop by the World Poker Tour’s Alpha8 circuit in Johannesburg, South Africa, only was able to call in nine players for action, something that other High Roller and Super High Roller events have also seen (normally the fields for those tournaments of $100,000 is relatively small, counted in tens rather than hundreds).
There is also the problem of collusion and soft play that has been raised by Shak himself. Without naming names, Shak alleged that some players targeted businessmen in the tournaments (who enjoy the events due to their quick playing time that allows them to return to their day job), soft playing each other until someone (or everyone) was able to take the businessman’s chips. Shak himself mentioned that he wouldn’t take part in any more of these events unless it was a true freeze out without rebuys.
Let’s be honest, these High Roller and Super High Roller tournaments aren’t going anywhere soon. It would be in the best interest of the competing tours, however, to hold them in coordination with stops that are on their regular tournament schedule (the Alpha8 Johannesburg wasn’t a good idea). The tournaments do provide something for the casual poker fan, the ability to see players they know compete on a big stage. I personally have a dislike for the current re-entry fad (and I’ve spoken about that before), but if these men want to shift money around to each other in these events, so be it.
The one thing that we cannot let happen is the potential for the High Roller and Super High Roller events to overshadow those Main Event fixtures that, more often than not, reward a player for an excellent run over an extended period to taking the championship. These Main Events are potentially the building blocks for the next crop of excellent tournament pros, while the High Roller/Super High Roller events are for entertainment. Who knows, those Main Event champions one day may be sitting in the High Roller or Super High Roller tables themselves. If there aren’t replacements, then the big money High Roller tournaments may dry up on their own.
