Good friggin point. Prolly 90% of these players are gonna take coaching deals from TV celebrities they've seen.

So Let's speculate who these 9 coaches would be:

1. Phil Hellmuth
2. Daniel Negreanu
3. Johnny Chan
4. ??

average joe will type in his CC number to a poker site, watch it declined and forget about poker. If he can't deposit easily, he won't play. It's that simple.

guys, doesnt it make total sense that if online poker's legalisation is in the current landscape why the WSOP and Harrah's wouldnt want to latch on that at the perfect moment?

what if Harrah's got word from Barney Frank that the UIGEA's death is a done deal by September?

0% chance

That would be awesome Clayton.

If I make the final table I do not think I would be furious at anything nor will I spit on anyone.


sheets

This sucks for the people who would have had an edge at the FT. I think it should only help the poker economy though. As an 18 year old who can't play the WSOP until 2010 I kinda like this despite not agreeing with it.

sweet, an excuse not to drop what'll likely be my case 10k in this stupid crapshoot.

Patrik Antonius will not be needing a coach, imo.

oh, just saw that it's on november 9th. that is also my birthday!

let the stars align ftw

If dollar falls even lower relative to other currencies, there will be a metric ****ton of crazy Scandis and other foreigners playing, online ban or no.

wat

While that def helps european players, I seriously doubt it will have that big of an effect. It will cost me now 8k$ in the july 2007 rate to enter the wsop, but I don't think that many people will buyin because of the "discount". Most people who are willing to put up 8-8.5k are willing to put 10k as well.

Sure, if it crushes even further, who knows, but this will only account for a fraction of the players lost due to no 3rd party registration.

No offence but 9 average Joe's won't know who the hell you are over the live pro's.

I initially thought this was a stupid idea but after reading this thread I think it is a great thing (even though I know most posts been against it.)

This tournament will be slightly less profitable than it would otherwise have been. Instead of being 350% ROI, it'll be 300% ROI or something. Not that much of a big deal. If you get there and it costs you a few million you might be pissed off but we're poker players we shouldn't see it in those terms.

In terms of coaching, some players will not think they need coaching/will not listen to the coaching. i.e. Jamie Gold. Some players will not learn that much from coaching. Varkonyi, I think, got loads of coaching after winning and he hasn't become a superstar. (might be wrong here.) In terms of seeing hole cards, everyone will have that information, no reason that you can't adjust your game based on the information that you know your opponents have. There could be scope for out-leveling your opponent here.

I accept it will change the nature of the tournament in a massive way. But so what. All the other tournaments stay the same. This one tournament, which is a flagship for publicising the game, changes to publicise the game.

I think having 9 possible winners of the ME around for 4 months is much better than having one already winner. The one winner mightn't be the most media friendly, but having a few makes it a good chance that there'll be some interesting stories. And that'll could give the public someone to shout for at the final table. Build up is massive. And this is the only way to do it for poker. There's been threads in BBV where they discuss best/worst winners. This way we have 9 chances to get a poker celeb. If they become a celeb through being a finalist, it mightn't matter if they win or not in terms of getting people interested in poker.

It might turn out to be slightly unfair to one or more contestant (not being able to make it etc.), but well these guys have just luckboxed into a lot of money boohoo. Variance sucks.

If the build up becomes big then there could be some spin-offs in the time between July and November. The finalists could be invited to a tournament against the pros to see how they shape up. There could be a reality show type thing with a finalist and their coach. It all depends on how much exposure it gets.

This could give poker a massive boost, but even if it doesn't, I don't think they'll go back to the old way. This tournament should be about promoting the game in the best way for poker and this way seems much better than previously. It's not going to detract from entries to this tournament or it's prestige. MTT pros have still plenty of other chances to play tournaments in standard fashion.

Actually, when I think about it, for anyone who has the slightest idea of not how to market themselves and not be a total douche on camera, this will probably be a good thing for the people who make the FT. As long as in your pre FT interviews you don't blurt "I hate all non whites" then punch the interview girl I'm pretty sure you'll be fine.

Yes the other players who are worse than you might go get coaching, but my guess is only a few will get it in the right places. I'm not sure your equity would decrease from this more than it would increase from the opportunity to illicit sponsorship deals or just getting paid to wear a name brand on what expects to be 1-2 hours worth of TV time. IDK, this is the kind of thing Olivert could answer.

Most of all though, this would actually make me think about watching poker on TV again, and I haven't made any effort to do that without knowing a friend was on the table since 2003.

I'm perfectly happy to support some changes to the WSOP, we need to make sure that poker continues or increases its popularity. Last year, a lot of people complained about the Sequestrium (WSOP FTs that were broadcast over the Net with a 1-hour tape delay were played in a sequestered area), I wrote posts supporting it, because it increased publicity and the only "cost" was not being able to have a posse rooting for you at the FT. I also defended the "outrageous" juice being charged by Harrah's for the WSOP, recognizing that the WSOP is a massive undertaking and that they are providing tremendous value by hosting tournaments attended by so many. Yeah, Binion's charged less juice and gave great free buffets (so I heard), but they also went bankrupt.

I draw the line at doing something which drastically alters the outcome of the most important poker tournament, which this proposal does. That it happens to do so to the detriment of a group to which I belong, professional MTTers, makes it even worse. It may be as Bond wrote that those who make the final table will be better off financially due to increased exposure and endorsements (although I doubt they will), but that's really not the point.

Edit: For example, I'm sure we'd max out the ratings for the FT if we allowed people at the FT to sell their accounts and we had a FT with Hellmuth, Negreanu, Matusow, JJProdigy, etc. Anyone in favor of that?

I'm actually surprised so many people here are so against this. Although I obviously have no idea if this will work out, I think for a few reasons this was a good idea to try this year:

1) Not competing with the Olympics for media coverage. I have a strong East Asian bias (having lived there and traveled there often), and I can tell you that we all want poker to grow there. So we dream about having a Chinese player making the final table. But you realize that in the run-up to the Olympics, this will get no attention in Asia, right, as all reporters will be covering Olympics, and newspapers are going to have their sports section full from Olympics coverage anyway.

2) In countries that don't have a poker background, it takes time for reporters to understand the event enough that they can make an interesting report about a player at the final table. Last year, when the final table had a Russian and South African, it would have been great if local reporters in those countries had done human-interest stories about the players, as that would attract more players to the game. But you have to realize that most mainstream reporters in those countries don't know poker well, so it takes longer for them to research and write these stories.

3) Even if you are worried about coaching, don't you want to see good poker at the final table? If we want to attract more players to the game, don't we want them to see some skill and thus think they should try this?

Most of the other positives have been said before. As for some of the negatives, I don't get the complaint about having your opponents seeing some of your hole cards from earlier hands. First of all, you will know which hands they saw, so you will know what your image will be like. But secondly, has this adversely affected pros? If Phil Ivey makes the final table, there are hours and hours of footage of him with his hole cards. An opponent can study that footage, obviously. How big of an edge do you think this gives them? Basically this seems to me the exact criticism made years ago when the hole cam came out, only to find it increased interest (and thus money) in the game.

I do think it's a terrible idea for all the reasons everyone else said.

But think about how awesome the FT bubble will be.

You can probably trace this whole thing back to the vanity of some the "top" pros. At least, how Harrah's/ESPN sold it to them.

"Well, I'm interesting. And the media loves me, so why shouldn't it be that way for everyone else?"

These are great points

I actually changed my mind since I first posted this thread. I think that it has a potential to be good for the game and that if it brings new people onto the tourney circuit all of our equity will go up more than all of our expected equity diminishes by our opponents getting coaching when we make the WSOP ME final table.

Going by utility theory the overall utility in new interest far outweighs the lost utility for the pro who makes it to the final table. Especially because the pro should be able to recoup a small portion of his lost equity by making a better sponsorship deal for himself.


Also, these are excellent points; especially because olivert is trying to grow the game in Asia.

Doesn't the ME normally air in mid to late fall (after the olympics are over) normally?

The final table aired last year Oct. 9