May 4, 2008
The WSOP Final Table Delay is a Bad Thing
by Otis
The day Harrah's officially announced the much-anticipated final table delay, my IM machine and e-mail struggled under the pressure. Among those instant messages was from Up For Poker blog co-contributor Luckbox with a simple question: "Pro or con?"
I barely thought for a second before answering, "Con." CJ has since written down his thoughts about the WSOP final table delay. I guess it's up to me to take the opposing role. To be honest, it's hard to get up the energy to write with much fervor about the already-decided subject. What's more, I like to keep an open mind about things like this. Finally, I have a great deal of respect for many people in the opposing camp.
Regardless, I've been known to call myself a neotraditionalist. I'm a junkie for all things old school. I'm the old guy who just last Monday night rolled into a poker game with Pet Sounds blowing out of his speakers. More often than not, I like things the way they were more than the way they are. That in mind, you're probably not surprised to learn that I approach the WSOP final table delay--to keep it in the lexicon of you people who live in the now--with a healthy dose of "meh."
On collusion
The strongest argument made so far is one that's been made by the Con-Delayers so often that I don't need to hammer on it too hard here. A four month delay multiplies the opportunity for deal-making and yes--just say it out loud--collusion by a factor of about 120 times. We'd all like to think that people wouldn't collude on the biggest poker stage in the world. I'd also like to think someone would've found a way to bust Men the Master for his widely-rumored chip dumping and collusion scheme by now. If anything, this debate will mean just about everybody in the poker media will be looking for a hand in which" X-player absolutely had to call Y-player" but did not. I'd like to think Harrah's will be on top of this, but as someone pointed out in the last few days, no one said anything about the 2 million chip disappearance in 2006 until Amy and Tim produced what was probably the most important piece of poker journalism in the past decade. [For more, read Two Million Questions]. The Pro-Delayers wave off the collusion fears. Jeffrey Pollack says, "It would be a mistake," to mess with Harrah's in this way. I'd challenge you to find an already-inclined cheater to give a diddly damn what Harrah's thinks. If they were going to cheat before, they are going to cheat now. Only now, they have four months to figure out with whom to cheat and how best to do it.
On availability
As a late night IM said to me yesterday, if the final table delay had been in place in 2006, Richard Lee would've been arrested for bookmaking before the final nine reconvened to decide a champion.
Let's just think about that for a second. It's the most important event in any given year and the 11% of the field can't show up? The Super Bowl would be played with 19 players on the field. More than five cars would not compete in the Daytona 500. It's worse in poker, though. If a player can't make it because of death, emergency, or arrest, the seat won't be filled, but the chips will remain. Think of it like this: Jeff Gordon, Kyle Petty, Dale Jr., Mark Martin, and Greg Biffle all go out and get tossed in the drunk tank the night before the 500. In NASCAR, the vehicles would remain in the garage. Imagine if their cars were put driver-less on the track. The point is that a dead stack always changes play at a table. A dead stack at the final table of the World Series of Poker main event? Please. To the people who say, "Well there is always a chance of someone dying or getting arrested on the night before the final table.": Sure there is. Now there is a chance that lasts four months. Imagine if Stu Ungar had a four-month wait between ten-handed and final table play. Hell, what about Vinny Vihn? What if he makes the final table this year?
The point is this: It's not sympathy for the person who can't show up because he is no longer breathing or is breathing in a Clark County jail cell. It's the unnecessary and distinct change in the game that would happen as a result of that player's absence.
On sponsorship
One of the loudest arguments made by the Pro-Delayers is the ability of players to secure better and more lucrative sponsorship deals. Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack has said out loud that he would love to see poker sponsorship become a lot more like NASCAR. For the player, it seems a great thing. It's why pro players gave their blessing to hole card cameras in the first place (more on that in a second).
And so, this is what we've been led to believe is a great thing for players. A four-month delay is...Stop! Agent Time!
As a friend (who can out himself here if he likes) pointed out to me, this decision is great for the nine people who make the final table. They will have four months to get the best possible sponsorship deal. However, this friend pointed out a less obvious consequence: the final 40 or so people in the tournament are going to lose a lot of sponsorship value. I've personally witnessed what I call the WSOP Shirt Dance. As the final five or six tables start to define possibilities for the final table, the sponsors start swooping in with deals, throwing shirts on potential final table candidates. Now, the sponsors can sit back, wait, and get the most value for their dollar. The Shirt Dance will still go on, but I would predict not to as large as a scale as it has in the past. If we're to think of it in Pollack's terms, it's as if sponsors could wait until the final nine laps of the 500 before slapping the Tide or Brylcreem logo on the side of the leading few cars.
In short, Pollack is getting his wish. Sponsorship deals are becoming a lot more like NASCAR...more money for few, less money for the field.
On marketing
Let's just call this what it is: a great decision for the business and marketing of poker designed to make poker a lot more like NASCAR and make a lot more money for the companies involved in putting it on. It will put a new marzipan on the same poker cake we've been eating for years.
The Pro-Delayer's loudest argument for the change is that it will give ESPN a chance to profile the final table players and turn them into stars before the final table plays out. The idea is two-fold. First, it will grow the poker audience. Second, it will boost ratings for main event coverage. I don't begrudge them those goals. Marketing is a big reason poker has become what it has.
But, let's all be honest with ourselves here. I think, as a business, poker has probably spent up the Moneymaker value. There was a time when most people (even you!) didn't know you could qualify for the World Series through an online poker site. The symbiotic relationship between online poker companies and the WSOP, combined with the revolutionary hole card cameras made poker what it is today. We can thank Henry Orentstein, PokerStars, and Chris Moneymaker for that. Still, today, is there a wide market of people who don't know about online poker qualifying? Can the WSOP fields still grow by such huge percentages? Will a semi-live final table change that? Probably not.
Listen, I applaud Pollack and everyone else for trying to grow the WSOP brand. There was a time when NASCAR had a much more limited audience than I does today. There's a reason the NASCAR explosion happened and it's marketing decisions like they have made for the WSOP final table. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to increase ratings. It will help us all. I'm all for it, in fact.
The problem is, in an effort to market poker to a wider audience, Harrah's is making changes to the game that have a chance at affecting the outcome. Nobody should be in favor of that.
Alternatives to the delay
If we all can agree that the marketing of poker is a great thing if we could somehow get rid of the delay, then I think we should be able to agree that there are better solutions. Four months is an eternity in this world.
The four-month delay serves two purposes. First, it allows people to watch a semi-live event in edited form (Pollack says, "Think the Olympics!"). Second, it allows ESPN to pump up the profiles of the final nine so Joe Six Pack will care about the potential winner in advance.
Both of these are noble goals. There is nothing worse than watching a final table of nine people you don't care about, especially when you already know the outcome. (Note: you would be surprised how many regular Joes out there get really pissed when you tell them who won the WSOP before it shows on TV).
So, what is the solution? Can we have our cake and lick the marzipan too? The answer is yes, if ESPN wants to put up the money and manpower to do it. It's not perfect, but it serves the same purpose without adding unnecessary changes to the game.
Here's how it works: The main event is scheduled to last about a week and half before final table play begins. Full coverage shouldn't start until play is down to the final three tables. At that point, ESPN records the tournament like a live sporting event. Editors work as they go for a next-day broadcast. At the same time, a features crew should already have several features in the can and ready to roll. Finally, when the final table arrives, it is broadcast live (without hole cards) on a secondary ESPN network. Then, for those who want to watch an edited version, 411 (the production team in charge of the WSOP broadcasts) does a cut for the next day.
Would it cost more? Yes. Would it be more difficult? Absolutely. Would it serve the same marketing purpose while not affecting the game? Yes.
Don't think it can be done? Well, an excellent crew out of London does it once or twice a month during the European Poker Tour. Sunset + Vine produces a live webcast of feature and final tables in the final two days of EPT events. The quality is outstanding and the product is very easy to watch. Given, they don't do a next day edit on the final table, but it is possible if people want to do it. If I'm supposed to be thinking of the Olympics, I suppose I'm allowed to point out that we get next-day edits from those production crews.
Simply put, the WSOP is either a sporting event or a reality show. If it's a sporting event, then cover it like one. If it's a reality show, then let's all call it what it is and stop being so high and mighty about it. I prefer the former, but nobody listens to me.
And why it doesn't really matter
The decision has been made here. It has the blessing of some top pros, the Nevada Gaming Commission, and, most importantly, Harrah's, the company that stands to make the most money on the deal. It's a WSOP experiment in poker like...
Single table satellites for the main event (good)
Playing the final table outside (bad),
Hole card cams (good)
The Bluff Media hour-delay poker hole/tent (bad)
The Milwaukee's Best All-In button (bad)
The Milwaukee's Best bar beside the TV table (bad)
The Poker Satellite area tent (bad)
The 2007 poker peek cards (bad)
Like I said, not every experiment is bad. Just most of them. That's what's made me a neotraditionalist.
I actually have a lot of respect for the people behind this idea. I hope it turns out well. I hope nothing goes wrong. I just think it could be done differently and better. As we move forward, we should always be asking ourselves what is more important...the integrity or growth of the game? Moreover, is there ever a time we should put the latter before the former?
I don't think there is, especially when there are viable alternatives to serve both masters.
***
I hadn't thought about the folks who WON'T get a piece of the sponsorship pie because of this change. No need to choose horses when you'll already know who the horses are gonna be.
I find it somewhat ironic that Pollack keeps talking about making poker more like NASCAR...when NASCAR'S popularity has leveled off (or is waning) as well.
I think this is a chance worth taking. That said, Harrah's should've come up with a better response to the collusion issue than, "Ooh, they'd better not, or else!!". And having a dead stack at the table would be a disaster, and I don't see that they appreciate how bad it would be.
I'm not sure that I buy that argument about the sponsorship deals.
Are you honestly telling me PokerStars still won't try to lock up the last 30 or so players on the off-chance they'd make the final table?
There's still plenty of sponsorship opportunities to go around.
"Are you honestly telling me PokerStars still won't try to lock up the last 30 or so players on the off-chance they'd make the final table?"
1) That is exactly what I'm saying. And if I prove to be wrong...
2) Any player who would be stupid enough to take a deal with 30 players left would be a person who didn't have enough chips to interest a sponsor.
Just for the record, Richard Lee only went to jail for like a day or so. He woulda been on bail before the actual event, and that would make for even greater TV!
The main event is just one (albeit the biggest) WSOP tourney. Do you think all the bracelet events will see a similar decline in promotional opportunties?
I'm still not ok with a player who hits like Nick Punto coming back three/four month later looking like A-Rod however. And if the WSOP committee doesn't think hitting up CardRunners or one of those WPT-camps doesn't improve your game?
Why are people continually paying for them?
Okay... I'm sitting in 15th place out of 30 players left. I'm right about average stack.
1) You don't think PokerStars would want to lock me up with a sponsorship deal? PokerStars wouldn't believe the person in 15th has a good chance at the final table?
2) You don't think I'd jump all over a 6-figure sponsorship deal which is more money than I've made in my life? Am I really arrogant enough to think that I'm a lock for the final table that I'd pass on this sure thing?
Also all those finalist will be able to study the hole cards and reactions of other players on TV/DVR before the final table is finally played out. Oh yeah, so that's why he did that...
Strangely enough, I'm an expert with one data point to answer Luckbox's question (I actually represented a player last year at the Main Event in almost the exact specific way that he describes). In fact, Jerry Yang sat very similarly without sponsorship in that exact scenario. To Point #2, you would jump all over a 6-figure sponsorship deal, but those were not being offered with 30 players left. It was more like a standard $10k with the opportunity for 6-figures if you make the final table. To Point #1, there were many unaffiliated players left, and the whole process was bizarre at best. My client was able to do better only by taking on some risk (not signing anything until we went from six tables down to three). I'm also very sure that the WSOP will be very restrictive of agents as they were last year (escorting a couple from the Amazon Room). My situation was a bit unique as a personal friend asked me to represent him.
"Think the Olympics". Wasn't the tape-delayed broadcast of the Olympics a complete disaster? People knew the results and tuned out of events the US didn't do well in. I know many border cities tuned into the CBC and their live broadcasts in Canada. Sure, events were taking place at 3am, but if you cared about it, you'd either tape it or stay up. Imagine if the World Series of Baseball was tape-delayed to edit out all the pitcher conferences, sign throwing, etc..
And Luckbox - I can see sponsors easily sitting back. They might take a shot or two at 6 or less tables left, but for serverely discounted rates. And chances are most people that would take them aren't savvy enough to negotiate the better deal they COULD get.
I wonder how many attempts will be made at exclusive sponsorship. Ie.- Tilt offers a TON of money to someone if they don't take any other sponsors on, so their logo doesn't get lost in the sea of patches. Or how many of the contracts will try and slip that clause in without paying the premium.
Otis as always, well written and well thought out. This time, however, I disagree with you. There are experiments and there are stupid experiments like the Sequestrium last summer. But this one I like and I really hope it will work. The only compelling argument I have heard comes from the neo-luddittes who don't want television involved in poker. For those who see the benefits of television and media in general, they must see the decline has begun and efforts must be made to keep poker media friendly.
The final 9 gather to compete for a prize pool of $18 million (a little less than last year - just a guess). So the average is $2 million per player. Fulltilt is offering a $10,000,000 bonus to any of their players that win. So with a Full Tilt winner the prize pool is $28 million. This is over 3 million for every player. Give them (me) a few months to work it out and any inteligent player would want to enlarge the prize pool to $28 million. Oh - let me count the ways.
The last 9 will be stars, even the guy who goes out 9th. Plus, why not try it for a year? If it fails, then no harm. And, I am glad for once to see that we won't know who won months in advance. It gets old to know that the dude who won last year Jerry Yang was going to suck out every time he moved in with J-8 offsuit or Ace-rag.
I agree with "this is bad".
I wouldn't call it "bad", since it isn't set out to destroy poker, but it's (to me) an attempt to milk the cow that is (was?) poker one last time. NASCAR, my a**. For us continental Yuropeens, this makes no difference, really. The 2007 WSOP is on TV right NOW, in snips of 2 hours, 30% of which are commercials. Those who *did* care were online until the wee hours of night, pressing F5 on blogs or watching the few streams that were available.
Imagine the soccer World Cup. The Finale, now, let's not play it two days after the semis, no, let's play it in a TV studio, half a year later.
Sounds... uneasy, to say the least.
The whole vibe, the gist, the feeling, the tension, the yells of the railbirds, the chatter of those who did-not-quite, the blogosphere, the tourists, the stakers, the backers, the high-profile standers-by, the low-life grinder... all these, all the people who make the WSOP a bit richer, all these who emBODY poker, they get left out, they, this is how I put it: They get robbed of their contribution to The Game.
Poker does have, after all, a sense of wild-west to it, a little sting of danger, the excitement of semi-illegal. The Final Table of the WSOPE ME is the epitome of all that poker embodies. Putting that "body" in a clean, sterile glas box is not good for the game.
A little effort could go a long way to making this event watcheable LIVE and RIGHT THEN, with a hole-cam'd edition the next day.
Right now, this feels like having to watch a taped penalty-shoot.
"The whole vibe, the gist, the feeling, the tension, the yells of the railbirds, the chatter of those who did-not-quite, the blogosphere, the tourists, the stakers, the backers, the high-profile standers-by, the low-life grinder... all these, all the people who make the WSOP a bit richer, all these who emBODY poker, they get left out, they, this is how I put it: They get robbed of their contribution to The Game."
Actually, I expect all of those people to still be there. Perhaps a few bloggers won't return to watch it life, and not everyone who busted will return to watch (unless they live in Vegas). But as it stands now, a lot of people still skip the final table. Unless you have an interest in one of the final nine, most poker insiders only watch part of the final table from the live audience, if that.
Contrary to a lot of the criticism, I expect the final table audience to become *bigger.* If they do this right (and everything points in that direction in my eyes), everyone from average poker fans to poker media insiders like myself will have more of a rooting interest (either for or against) in the November Nine. Last year, even though I covered the Main Event every day from beginning to end, I ended up knowing Lee Watkinson. I came to know Hevad Khan as the over-excitable super multi-tabler from PokerStars, and recognized Alexander Kravchenko from his earlier bracelet win.
That's it. That's not much, and I was there every day.
The November Nine won't become celebrities, and I don't think anyone at Harrah's or ESPN has ever claimed that. But they will receive much more media exposure, and most poker fans will see enough of their play and learn enough about them to have an opinion on these players *before* the final table, and that's what makes watching a "sporting event" interesting.
I think that also translates into a bigger, more involved live audience at the final table. I'm willing to bet that it's gonna be an exciting night!
I keep going back to this...
Imagine if they had delayed the final table when Jamie Gold won. From the backer dispute, to his questionable play, to his arrogant attitude... the WSOP would have had an honest-to-goodness villain. And if we've learned anything from reality TV, it's that villains sell.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... "poker isn't reality TV" they cry. Sure, if you want to go back to the days of a couple hundred WSOP entrants, then yes, poker isn't reality TV. But none of you really want to go back to that.
I agree with Otis's point, that the EPT tv crew Sunset & Vine do a great job on a short turn around. The Irish Open had an edited show run late at night every nite of the main event, about a 2 hour delay
Turnaround time isn't the issue, Steve. ESPN will be turning around the WSOP episode in less than 24 hours.
The important factor to the ratings is the buildup during the delay. Letting everyone watch the early Main Event days on TV, getting a feel for the tournament, and watching the November Nine rise to the top.
Then they get a preview episode that gives further background on those players (reducing the need to waste time during the final telecast on that stuff). At that point, all poker fans -- whether casual or hard-core -- will likely have some kind of rooting interest. They'll likely be rooting for a few people, and against a few others. (We all judge on different criteria; some fans still like the Cinderella donks.)
If you aired a 2-hour episode of the final table on ESPN on July 16th, the ratings would be week. It would just be a 2-hour special event, with no buildup in the media. Sure, people like us who attend the WSOP and read poker blogs will watch it. But few other people would care.
Imagine the commercials -- "Tune in Wednesday night as you watch nine poker players battle for the biggest prize in sports! (Players to be determined later ...)"
Even if someone popular like Doyle Brunson or Daniel Negreanu made the final table, a lot of people wouldn't find out in time. "Daniel Negreanu was at the final table? I wish I had seen that! Why didn't they advertise it better?"
