forgive me if im completely missing something because i dont know much on this subject, but what are the currect PAC members doing wrong that younger minds would change?

turbos, super turbos, events that end in less than 6 hours, mouse pads and clickers for every seat, etc.

I know for a lot of you guys the age thing is important. I would say it's less important than actually bringing something to the discussion. So far all of the people offered don't sound like people that could push agendas, they would be pushed around in my opinion. This is irrespective of age. Getting stuff done has very little to do with "well the guys on 2+2 think we should consider this", "that's great, you tell them we did and we will do what we want". That's how things go.

TBH As far as I see it, DN bitched and bitched after the 2006 or 2007 series about structures and things. Then they implemented the PAC and he said it had got better but he now understood it can't be perfect - there's always going to have to be sacrificies made/imperfections given the sheer scale of thing. There are a finite amount of dealers or whatever other constraints there might be. It's a bit like every guy who drinks regularly in a bar swears he'd run it better - without any concept of the nuts and bolts of it.

The idea that a bunch of online kids should have more of a say is just lol. It's bricks and mortar, real felt. Therefore the poeple who play most in that form of the game deserve the representation. Just because you satted in from online doesn't give you any right to call the shots.

The PAC is made up entirely from people who made their name on real felt - of the type that the WSOP is played on. You can argue for more 2+2 friendly people like Gobbo or Chainsaw - fine, people will never be entirely happy with the breakdown of something like that. But what Durrr, Galfond (bright and sensible though he seems) or good2cu should be on there?

Lol@durrrments or robl on PAC which is what most of NVG would vote for.

About the scheduling, I think that that has a lot to do with the players that don't stay for the whole series. A lot of people (myself included) only stay for a week or two, to play certain events. It makes sense to group the tourneys like they have because then if I want to play the SH tournaments I can come in for that week, or if I want to play the HORSE tournaments I can come in for that week.

I agree with pretty much everything else said in this thread though (especially gobbo/gavin being on the committee).

oh, and lol donkaments.

Why do B&M players deserve more representation when the majority of the players in the tournaments are primarily online qualifiers?

I find this very disturbing....

DUCY your argument is ******ed with the additions I made to your post?

This is correct. Unfortunately these are exactly the people who will never be allowed on the PAC.

I have no idea whether they'd have any interest in doing it, but I think Bax and/or Sheets (conflict of interest disclosure: they're my backers) would be perfect choices. They are fully in touch with the online and live tournament scenes and I'm guessing rank fairly high in terms of buy-ins spent at the WSOP. They're both smart guys who aren't afraid to speak their minds and wouldn't take any **** from anyone.

DUCY your additions, particularly the last one, are completely irrelevant? Paying rake to a non-WSOP satellite makes no difference to Harrah's, seeing as they're still being paid their full rake for the entry. If >50% of your customers are entered into your tournament due to playing online satellites, wouldn't you at least like to have some idea of what it is they want to get out of your tournament?

Not sure how much bitching there was at the time but whoever came up with the payouts in the $1500 Shootout should be removed from any committees they are on. $5600 gtd for winning your first table, $6900($1300 more) for winning your 2nd likely tougher table. That was criminal.

disgrace

Yeah, this was terrible. And Jack Effel's response was, "Sorry, we've published the payout structure, there's nothing that can be done at this point." Since they don't publish the payout structures in advance, there is no point at which an awful payout structure, and that one certainly qualified, can be changed. I doubt that the PAC deals with the details of payout structures (although I think Barry does to some extent but that's probably in an individual capacity).

I could be wrong on this; but I believe before Harrah's can advertise any structure they have to have it approved through the gaming commission, and once they've had it approved and advertised it they have to put it on as is. It's sort of a stupid catch-22 with the gaming commission.

I would call this a positive.

Well it is a net positive in the sense that you don't show up for events that are totally different or whatever; but you lose the ability to get feedback on the structure and make revisions where they are obviously needed.

That is lame but I can guess how it came about.

ITM is always >Buy in?

Since it's a shootout they can only get to ITM when all tables are finished. They must have applied a % of people left so 'now we're ITM' - it was a sort of dead zone where if they'd had ±80 entrants the situation wouldn't have occurred.

Shootouts probably need closer attention to payout structures 'on the fly.' If they have to put it before the Gaming Commission prior to the event it's not really possible to get a decent payout structure since it involves guesstimating the entry field to a decent degree of accuracy.

Second table rated to be tougher than 1st.

Oddly, I second this motion!

I would do it, and would have better input than the feduniaks

Lol the whining about most members being over 30. This group has to go up against the suits at Harrah's and ESPN and represent the player's perspective. What kind of respect will an internet wunderkind who plays mostly online garner among this crowd?

As for them being comprised of mostly Americans, well, its in America. A Euro will likely miss many of the meeting because its not worth it to fly to the other side of the planet to discuss the minutia of a poker tournament.

Well, somebody under 30 may be able to set up a videoconference from Europe, using this series of tubes they have now for that sort of thing...

There has been an international version of the PAC in recent years.

In 2008, it was:

Joe Hachem
Andrew Black
Ben Roberts
Donnacha O’Dea
Gus Hansen
Isabelle Mercier
Marcel Luske
Willie Tann

it's pretty obv that durrr should be on the PAC

One thing the PAC definitely should have prevented this year is the WSOP's awful plan to play only 4 levels the first 4 days of the ME. The money was the end of level 16 last year, so it's possible that the money won't be reached until Day 5. If you play Day 1A, you will have 3 days off between 1A and 2A, and 2 days off between 2A and 3. So it's possible that players on Day 1A will be in town for 10 days without making the money.