It could be the WSOP-F for Fall. So many people are around for it anyway.

I will just say. No. Why? Because no need to dilute the value of the bracelets further.

But hey, what do I know, im just a recreational fish with bigger aspirations...the day the systems not rigged against me! Im hopeful someday haha

I agree they should have something. It's off season and weather is nice.

Just move the WSOP-C at Caesar's from Feb to Nov, and fancy it it up with extra special events? Bracelet events might be too much to ask since people are working and in school..

A rail tournament could work

Maybe a few 1-1.5ks in different formats, or one 2.5k tourney

Not bracelet events but some wsop branded thing

no

They need to get rid of the N9. It has always been ******ed.

Online Nine

No it hasn't.

Probably one of the only good things poker still has going for it.

yes

Not bracelet events, but a few little siders going would be nice

If this is the only good thing poker has going for it, then poker is in bigger trouble than everyone thinks.

Im not a fan of the massive wait for the ft to be played. Although I get what theyre doing, I don't think delaying the final table to market it and not "spoil" who wins while the episodes air leading up to the final table really makes much of a difference to the casual viewer.

It is what it is, and Im no marketing guru so maybe the ratings are much higher this way. Although I doubt it.

1. It makes a world of difference
2. It isn't what it is. Your doubt is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_Nine#2008

November Nine is important for poker.

The only people who think its bad for poker players are poker players and we all know the sort of things poker players think would be good for poker

edit:

The Main Event IS the biggest thing in poker. There is nothing wrong with the N9 being the biggest thing in poker.

nothing about the marketing aspect of how good the November 9 is more exposure for poker:

isnt it kind of ridiculous to play a poker tournament for 6/7 days, get down to 9 people, then stop. FULL STOP. and resume as a 9 person sit n go 5 months later? SO much can happen in 5 months. not to be a downer, but some1 could die or get a horrible brain injury.

was there a lot of push-back stopping the Main Event and making the last 9 people wait 5 months to finish the thing?

Good research Kralex.

Again, it doesn't matter to me much either way. I wont argue with you but will just ask how the ratings have been comparatively since 2008? 50% increase from 07 to 08 is huge and definitely worth it. I just think at what point does the novelty wear off?

You say that the main event is the biggest thing in poker. And sure, I'll agree. But at no point is anyone saying to not finish the tournament.

It is what it is. Its impossible to not be what it is.

they def should add a couple of tournies to spice things up

I like the idea without the bracelets.

Lol

I'd love to hear your argument why it isn't.

Some of you guys have a wack idea of whats good for poker and whats not.

Whats good for poker players is usually bad for everyone else.

It's off season and weather is nice.

I'd go down there for a week if there was a reason, like something to play.

Tournament prizes could include front row spectator seats to the OneDrop and the HOF thing, and the other thing.. hmm... oh yeah.. the FT.

I think its a bit of a stretch to say the November 9 is the biggest thing poker has going for it. Yes, the Main Event is the biggest and best tournament that poker has with the most prestige. But whether its played to conclusion in july or November isn't "the biggest thing poker has going for it"

I love this thread because exactly one person used math, numbers, and/or statistics to back up their point, and this information was summarily ignored.

If the people ITT form their assumptions at the poker table the same way they apparently do in real life, poker is confirmed alive and well.

It's sort of what they used to do years ago. On day 2 of the Main, they would have a $1500 bracelet event just hoping for Main Event bustouts, but they ended up getting good turnouts. So they also had events on Day 3 and 4.

I've been hearing this sentiment a lot lately, and I'll confess I just don't get it. The massive disparity in the difficulty and field size between different bracelet events "dilutes the value" of bracelets way, way more than adding a few more bracelet events does.

On top of that, there's no criteria you could set that would make some current events "worthy" of being bracelet events and other events "not worthy," without that same criteria disqualifying a large amount of bracelets won in the games early history.

People complain about diluting the value of bracelets, but compare field sizes and strength to tournaments in decades past. It's a hell of a lot harder to win a bracelet now than it was, say, 30 years ago, but I don't see anyone clamoring to take Doyle Brunson's bracelets away from him.

I seriously can't tell whether you're leveling me or not..

If they just play on to the final table the only people who benefit are professional poker players. Thats it.

ESPN can't make any money off the buzz, can't create a hype around the players involved, the money involved, production etc.

This may all seem like "wtf has that got to do with poker?". Everything if you want to actually make the industry profitable.

So give the fish a nice "final". Promote it, pimp it, sell it, thats the way to do it and thats the way its done.

Don't doubt ESPN, they definitely have smart people working in Public Relations. Or at least smarter than what is on 2+2.