Yup, fat keyboard fingers..
That depends on how much you like to play poker or how much you like to be on TV.

I think Talal posted in another thread that he has a pretty good understanding of who puts who into highrollers, the groups of players who swap with each other and so on. I would assume David Einhorn is aware of that, too.

Going back to the original question, (super) highrollers exist because there’s demand. Rich people who like to play poker seek the challenge of playing the best players in the world. Everything around those tournaments is organized in a way to accommodate those rich fun players. Including the structure of the events, making sure they don’t last longer than 3 days, with a lot of them being single-day or two-day events.

OP, it appears that you don't like how huge poker tournaments have turned into business opportunities, which in your mind devalues the game itself, which I get.

When you have millions of dollars in prize pool on the line, though, it's inevitable that anybody who thinks they are +EV in the tournament should play to generate a return for themselves and their friends (investors).

I don't think this takes away from the greatness of the game though. Everybody still has two cards in their hand and sees a 5-card board if they choose to. In fact, this is stimulating for the game, since random news websites will generate headlines about poker tournaments that people can fawn over. Yes, we all know that almost nobody in that tournament has 100% of themselves, but the general public doesn't, and it's something they can talk about with their buddies at poker night. By berating these tournaments, the dream of winning millions one day is slowly getting crushed. Keep the dream alive.

what dream are you talking about here? winning millions in one day, if the buy in alone is one million?

i don´t know your buddies, but mine are dreaming about other stuff than entering a one million buy in tournament. could be wrong though

Which is why they don't play One Drop anymore.

The first tournament was something new. It was exciting and got mass media coverage. After that first one, the novelty wasn't there and nor was Guy. It was fairly well publicised that Guy bought in a number of players to help promote One Drop, players who wouldn't have otherwise played.

The charity side of the One Drop is now pointless.
If a businessman wants to donate 100k to charity, he's can do it in far more efficient ways than ponying up 1 million. They know they're drawing dead to the high stakes swap machine.

They are much better when you have the Macau Crew who play very aggressively and at times badly, putting the wizards in tough spots. The recs who played one drop this year were too competent (yet not competent enough to fully compete with the wizards obv) to be very interesting to watch.

It reminds me of the high end art scene which is just a way for rich people to pass money between each other. Rich people with too much money gonna do rich people things.