I know your question was rhetorical, but the answer is C obviously.

nh sir.

So true, the GPI itself only exists for the benefit of (c)

poker is incredible

This.

Marketing based on poker as a thing to watch and be a fan of is worse than marketing based on poker as a thing to play. This is the problem with the whole idea of sportifying poker.

The only fans that count are the ones that buy in and play with in the game.

A slight edit to my post 24. Make it 64 players 8x4 Final tablist and 8 top series players. Invite them to Sept/Oct Heads Up Championship 50k for free and pay 1M for first, 600k for second, 400k for 3rd and 4th and 200k for 5th to 8th.

For now, yes.

The hope is for poker tournaments to become like PGA and/or pro tennis tournaments, with prize money coming from sponsors and TV rights. Obviously, this sounds like a total pipe dream under our current sensibilities (and I think it will stay that way for a long while).

When poker was booming, I started to wonder how far away we were from having a hybrid of this, with the prize money coming partially from player buy-ins and partially from sponsors. We did see it on a micro-scale: on Poker After Dark, the Full Tilt players were only in for half of the $20K buy-in.

But imagine a live MTT where there is not only no rake, since the event is paid for by external sources, but money added to the prize pool. The overlay would attract the TV-friendly names, which in turn would draw the rec players who want to play against the big names.

Anyway, I sense that this is the GPI's objective. It's far-fetched for sure, but little things like the above are the first step AND don't cost much to do.

Love it

I don't think reducing the sample size in tournament poker to 4 is going to give credibility to what's already silly at a sample of 50.

that would be pretty rad. down the road we will have like the tiger woods of poker get a divorce and start sucking ass because he is mentally drained while trying to chase "x's" record



get dem majors

Don't the "pros" these days look down theiir noses at these piddly 10k events? Can't see any major being such a "low" buy-in

They're not the real pros, they're the piece swappers.

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.

Unfortunately, "credibility" comes from teh gubmint.

Could make it the EPIC Poker.....oh wait forget that

WSOP Main

EPT Main

WPT Main

Poker Players Championship (This is the one all players want to win behind the main right?)



Im not sure why poker needs to copy other sports though

Not sure I said that I wanted to create a big four, I don't recall that It is a topic we have worked on, at GPI, since 2 years. Its a discussion we had with a lot of 'big names' too to see if it make sense, but let's be honest, due to the variance, it would be difficult to crown the best players of 4 events. That's why we didn't pursued at this stage, and focus on GPI POY for example that represent actually the best players for the last 12 months on the whole circuit, and its open to everybody.

Doing a GPI Grand Slam, is one of our projects, but it is too early and bring a lot of of commercial & politics question marks. Look at Ole Schemion, probably the best player of our generation right now, he was not 21, he was already 1st of GPI. He was not able to attend the WSOP or any american (LAPC) event. So it is debatable. Pretty much open to the question, I do like the idea of 'labelling' WSOP ME, WPT LAPC, EPT MC ME, etc ... but need to figure out if it is in the interest of theses brands to support it, and what is the interest to get 'media exposure'. For now, for journalists, it will be still another 'poker tournament'. Same narrative than before.

Why four? Seems like we have 8 majors in poker: 6 live and 2 online:

WSOP ME
Aussie Millions
PCA
EPT Championship
WPT Championship
WSOP Europe ME

SCOOP ME
WCOOP ME

Why are we trying to cut 4 out just because golf and tennis only have 4? It's much more difficult to win a poker tournament, so it's logical to have more chances. The great golf and tennis players win double digit majors. That would never be possible in poker.

We have 8, and should start referencing them that way. "Hellmuth won his second major in 2012 by winning the WSOP Europe ME."

Now the EPT championship becomes an actual sports story instead of just a poker tournament.

Or maybe you call them the 6 majors and the two online majors, since they are different categories and trying to combine them is kind of forced.

6 majors seems really logical to me.

I lol'd

I would suggest the 4 major events that are televised the most....

But the reality is manufacturing a "Triple Crown" or a "Grand Slam" is contrived an disingenuous. Sort of like that crazy title for guys that won EPT's and WSOP events.

Meh winning tournaments is hard celebrate victories when and where they happen.

It should be 4 super high roller events. Completing a "grand slam" would be do able. Plus the marketing term is for the staked high roller guys anyways.

Poker is not a sport, it is a card game imo.

Also,

WSOP LV-June
London-September
Australia-December
Borgata-March

Mini majors:
Paris - July
Canada- August
Caribbean- October

Of these 4 which one won't exisit in 5 years. WPT or Aussie Millions? I would say the PCA has longer lasting power for December.

Ok, late October/early November Aussie, then PCA December.

WSOP LV-June
London-September
Australia- Late October/Early November
Caribbean- December
Borgata-March

Mini majors:
Paris - July
Canada- August

Forgive my ignorance, but what is going on in London in September?
As far as I know, the WSOPE venue hasn't been confirmed and bear in mind it was in Paris last time. Not to mention the fact that WSOPE alternates with WSOP APAC.
EPT London isn't even the biggest EPT event, so it can't mean that.
PCA is January.