May 2, 2008
The WSOP Final Table Delay is a Good Thing
by Luckbox
It's official.
The folks running the World Series of Poker have decided to delay the final table of the Main Event for nearly four months, from July 16th to November 9th. The nine players will play down to two on the 9th and the heads-up play will be held on the 10th. ESPN will broadcast the event on Tuesday, November 11th.
And that's good for poker. It's good for the players. It's good for the fans. It's good for all of us.
Those complaining about this change are being incredibly short-sighted.
Don't tell me you buy into the "integrity of the event" argument. This is a poker tournament we're talking about, right? A tournament that survived two million mystery chips. A tournament that survived Jamie Gold. A tournment that has survived thousands and thousands of players, a percentage of whom have undoubtedly attempted to circumvent the "integrity" of the event.
Let's take some of the complaints, one by one:
Final Table Coaching
Are we really all that horrified by the idea that the final 9 will actually attempt to get better in those four months? Forgive me for liking the idea that players at the final table might all know what they're doing. I don't think it would take much work in Google to find poker blogs decrying the poor play at the final table. Now we're worried about those same players being coached?
The fact is, each player will have the same opportunity to improve their game as everyone else. It's not as if four months of coaching will turn some Moneymaker-like amateur into Eric Seidel. If you're suggesting it's not fair because an amateur can get better, but a pro can't, then you are making an argument not supported by facts.
Final Table Scouting
Again, this is a bad thing? If anything, this kind of scouting would off-set any so-called advantage the amatuers would gain by being coached. In these 4 months, I'd imagine the final 9 would have plenty of opportunity to play high-profile events. Those more experienced players would likely be better able to use information gathered in those events to pick up the tendencies of their opponents.
However, as I stated above, this is an advantage that ALL final table players would have. Not only would they get a chance to see how they made it to the final table on ESPN, but they'd have new chances to play against them or watch them play before the final table. How can something that improves the level of play be a bad thing?
Colluding, Cheating, Soft-play
I dismiss this suggestion without a second thought. From what I can tell, there were 32 hours between the time the 10th place player busted out at last year's ME and when the final table started play. That's plenty of time for someone to decide to cheat or collude. That's plenty of time for some predator to swoop in and make a play.
What if someone dies?
What if an earthquake swallows Las Vegas?
********************
This all brings us to the reasons this is a good thing for the poker world.
Last year, the WSOP ME ended on July 17th. The world saw Jerry Yang win the bracelet on October 9th. And despite that length of time, there was no effort made to promote those people we all knew would be at the final table. Yang probably got five minutes of air time before it got down to the final two tables.
The year before, there was a month and a half between when Jamie Gold raised his arms in victory in one of the more controversial WSOP ME's in recent years and when we all got to see it on ESPN. Gold, despite his long list of flaws, was one of the more compelling champs in recent years. And he was nearly anonymous until the day it aired.
This change isn't being made for you and me. We are the ones who will follow the live-blogging exploits of Otis and Dr. Pauly. We'll know many of the inside stories. But the rest of the world won't.
And aren't they the ones that matter?
Ask yourself, when did poker explode? It exploded when Chris Moneymaker captured the American imagination. He was the first real poker TV star. He was the everyman. Online play went through the roof. And that was good for all of us. Every schulb from Anytown, USA thought he could win the WSOP. They logged on, and they gave us their money.
Since then, I believe the poker world has failed to capitalized on the personalities who can bring even more players to the real and virtual tables. Greg Raymer and Joe Hachem? Nice guys, but have they compelled anyone to play? Jamie Gold could have been the next great villain, but the opportunity was squandered. Jerry Yang? Well... I'm not sure he helps my case.
But it's not just about the winners. It's about all 9 players. For the first time ever, we'll have a chance to delve into the stories of these players. By the time we see the final table, more Americans than ever will know who they are. And for the first time, you won't be able to jump online and Google the winner.
This change is made to increase the exposure of the World Series of Poker. It's to generate a new breed of excitement. And despite all of the selfish, profit-driven reasons of Harrah's and ESPN, this is good for us. It will help convince more people to stop being just a spectator and to start being a player. The more fish in the sea, the more we get to eat.
And what's so wrong about that?
I kinda like it because I hated that all the excitement of the ESPN broadcast was ruined for me because I knew the winner already.
Have to disagree with you on this one. Aside from any actual collusion or deal-making (which I think you've negating with a wave of the hand way too casually), the move guarantees that there will be much, much more talk of collusion and deal-making, which is almost as bad as the act itself as far as hurting televised tournament poker's long-term prospects.
More than a few would-be players would be turned off from the game if Rhynie Campbell's recent shenanigans and Men the Master's past orchestrated chip-dumping shenigans were more well-known. The move by Harrah's is only going to increase the likelihood that deal making and collusion is forced into the spotlight, and that's not at all a good thing for tournament poker.
And that doesn't touch on the potential for luckbox degenerates to get themselves into serious debt if they're handed 9th place money and a potentially false hope of future riches set loose for 3 months+. Using your Moneymaker example, the odds are great that if the current structure had existed then he could have been seriously in debt when the final table resumed, to the point that he was vulnerable to all sorts of pressure from all sorts of people to play sub-optimally, if it meant his markers/debts vanished.
I just can't see poker gaining enough from the potential for celebrity-making to overcome the concrete negatives that the structure introduces. Yang has been a complete non-entity since his win, and a 117 day delay to watch him pray and go to church wouldn't have changed that.
True, there could be some real trainwrecks that make the final table this year that will generate "great" press in the days leading up to the final table, but is that really the press we want? I mean, maybe, and I can't claim to know whether it'd be good or bad for the game for more Jerry Springer and Cops fans to belly up to the table, but I don't think that playing the reality tv card is really the best way for poker to go, as far as long-term viability.
"but I don't think that playing the reality tv card is really the best way for poker to go, as far as long-term viability."
I guess this doesn't make sense to me since it is exactly reality TV that has made poker as viable as it is today.
Would we really have as many players, or as many places to play if it weren't for TV? The WPT, Poker After Dark, the WSOP, Heads Up Championship, Celebrity Poker Showdown, etc., etc., etc.
Reality TV is exactly why poker has become so profitable for so many of us.
And I guess it was a bit short to dismiss the potential of cheating and collusion, but as you've said, it exists already. I don't buy that it will be more prevelant now. Predicting something like that, without any evidence it will happen, is hardly a reason to avoid positive change.
Finally, each of the 9 players will be paid 9th place money once they reach the final table. 9th paid more than $500,000 last year. I suppose it's possible for someone to get themselves in trouble in about four months despite a $500,000 pay day... but haven't there been players in the Main Event in the past that were beholden to backers, or players heavily in debt (Mike Matusow anyone?). I just don't believe, until it's proven otherwise, that there will be a greater chance of that with this change.
My worry isn't so much that actual collusion or chip-dumping will increase in frequency (although I think it will), but the fact that those activities will be publicized much more now. I mean, what if a final tabler this year gets caught offering some goon $300,000 to run over the chip leader with a bus? (Although I guess you could argue that such a thing might increase poker's popularity). Harrah's take seems to be to increase poker's visibility at all costs, but poker has some inherent skeleton's in its closets that should remain there, due to the nature of the game. I think it's a precarious time in the US as far as getting us legally back on the online poker trolley, and all it'd take is one scandalous story like the above to forever doom us from ever getting the nod to play online again.
Using the Moneymaker example as playing a pivotal role in the meteoric rise of poker's popularity (which I think we both agree on), I guess it really comes down to how you view what it was about him that clicked with people and got them to the tables.
If it was seeing an every-day dude go on a run and win millions, then yeah, playing up the reality aspect of things and showing all of the bumps and bruises of poker will be a good thing for poker in the long run.
If the draw was simply the fact that lots of people had no clue you could not only play poker online for real money but could parlay a cheap satellite into millions like Moneymaker did, then the move by Harrah's doesn't produce as much pop. Some pop, as more publicity will inevitably introduce the game to more people, but about the same as if Harrah's had left the structure alone and did a better job on the pr side of things.
I guess it just boils down to why you think people watch televised poker and then play themselves. If you think it's because of the reality, hey-I-can-do-that-too side of things, then you're right, and this is a good move by Harrah's.
If you think televised poker is popularity because many people are inherently greedy monkeys that love to gamble (which is where I fall), then Harrah's would have been better off addressing more fundamental things that make poker tournaments as they now stand horrifically un-spectator friendly.
All valid points... I guess I fall on the side of believing the benefits (the better exposure, the better personal stories) outweigh the slim chance of the scenario you described actually playing out.
Besides... like you said, the scenario you described may bring more eyeballs to the TV! ;-)
What's wrong with not delaying it and broadcasting it shortly after it's over anyway?
Or broadcasting it LIVE? It's been done before, and was great. If Fox Sports did it four years ago, certainly ESPN can get it together and do it now. I suppose it might have to be on ESPN 8 (the Ocho!), though. ESPN and ESPN 2 will probably have other things going on.
As I see it, the only people who truly will lose with this change are those who entered the ME (or another WSOP event), busted out early, but still had time left in their vacation to stay and hopefully rail down to the final table. Instead, they're going to have to come back to Vegas again. Beyond that, it should increase viewership and buzz, and it will be nice to not log into my Google or Yahoo homepages and see the results staring at me from an RSS headline feed 3 or 4 months before it's on TV.
