Quote:
Originally Posted by AJD804
I get what you are going for here, but there is no way the hosting casinos are going to be happy with their already existing tournaments being capped at a number that is so low. How is the Rio going to like it when you tell them that they are losing out on 5600 x $600 in rake because you are only allowing 1000 in their tourney.
The problem with this idea in general is that just labeling something "Major" isnt really going to add anything to it. There isnt going to any outside money coming in, so the prize pools will stay the same, or if we limit entries, they will be even lower. The Main Event isnt going to become so much more important just because you are calling it a Major.
Im all for people and groups trying to come up with ideas on how to make poker more popular unfortunately the fact is most of them will never get off the ground because the overwhelming majority of players, casinos, tournament organizers, tv, etc., are only in this for their own self interests. There is nothing wrong with that because that is what poker is. It is not a team competition, its an individual endeavor at its heart. And with that being the case, nobody involved is going to work against their best interests for something that might be beneficial to the whole of the community.
I was looking for a "theorical" +ev situation for all the parts included
1) the marketing and the likely huge mass of qualifiers "chasing the pros" might balance the reduction of rake due to the smaller poll of players
2) the brand should be either brandnew or connected to the brand of the major (EPT, WPT, Aussie.. etc). This allow the major thing to outlive the tournaments itself
3) the freezeout might be not so appealing for players in general, but drops down the variance as a matter of fact.
again: my two cents.
