Not this coming year. The 2025 champ should start with a 10x stack in 2026.

This would make the TV coverage much better and increase the possibility of back to back winners. As long as everyone knows what the deal is ahead of time, there is no problem with me. There are tradeoffs but I think this idea is strong enough.

Aside from a few odd occasions I have not really watched the TV coverage for about a decade. This would absolutely make me watch because I want to see how a well-skilled practitioner approaches this. My only fear for the idea would be that someone might not to show up for the first days, and that would be their strategy... boring. A creative rule could protect against that.

What do you think?

think lots of the main event magic comes from the fact that “anyone can win it” and that it’s such a fair playing field.

putting a returning champ in with 10x stack wouldn’t be ideal for this

Horrible idea. I am aware that in the grand scheme of things, one out of 10k players having a 10x starting stack won't change the % of winning for an individual player at all. But the mere feeling that 'I don't have a fair start compared to that guy' would turn a lot of recs off from entering.

bad idea but I would like the idea of a freeroll tournament at the end of the series where your starting stack is based on how you performed in bracelet events
something like you must win 50bb to qualify, you get 1bb for mincashing a low buyin event and like 100 for winning a bracelet
it would incentivize people to play a big schedule of events and you could generate a huge prize pool off a small rake

I know even better let's kill off the highstakes dream and.... oh wait

First how would you decide which table gets screwed by having one with a 10x stack to start? Consider if you were the guy doing a once in a lifetime bucket list item and sits down to find that on his left is not only the former year winner but the former year winner with a 10x chip advantage. You just ruined his tournament.

Also, while it would be a novelty to have a back to back winner again, but your idea would also cheapen this. With (almost) 10k entrants B2B is going to be incredibly rare (if ever again) but to give someone a day 3 stack (I think that is correct) to start would lessen this and by a lot IMO.

Then you want to deny this person the freedom to optimize his strategy...if max late reg is an advantage, max late reg with a 10x starting stack would seem to be a major advantage.

But most simply, why should an obviously strong player (though maybe not the strongest) start or even want to start with an advantage (unless it is all about the money.)

Hate this idea. But I would like the starting stacks to go back to 10,000. That way when you are betting 3 million chips, you are betting $3 million worth of buy-ins. Makes for better TV.

This is a terrible idea in general but it doesn't even serve what you're trying to accomplish.

Even with this you're still extremely unlikely to get a repeat champion. More than that who is the last champion anyone would actually want to watch?

Hate the idea for all the reasons already stated.

That being said I might be able to get behind a big bounty for whoever knocks out last year's champ. That would incentivise people to get it in bad with that player, which would be an advantage to the former champ, IMO.

Really though the magic of the main event is that anyone who can wrangle up $10 k has an "equal" chance to win.

OP this is your solution to make coverage better? smh.

Actually, given PokerGo's history, they like some of the worst ideas, put in a resume.

it would be better 100x

there should be a bracelet's choice event.
you have to have won a bracelet to enter and you can pick any game you've won a bracelet from to be the game that's played when it is your button, but you have to be wearing that bracelet.

And if it was a bracelet in a 10 game mix can you pick any of the ten?

any game from that mix that's still being played at the WSOP either in its own event or a current mix. previous winner of the bracelet's choice can pick any game at the WSOP.

10x stack is pointless. if we are going this way it is better to give the champ half of all chips in play and the angle is the field vs the champ.

I love the idea but if we really want a repeat champ, it’s maybe better to have him auto qualify for the final table with 10x the stack of the chip leader. Would increase his chances even more.

Clown Pusher.... I like the idea a lot. Good thinking.

It seems real unpopular with others, but seems like a great , super simple way to add a little something new to the event without changing things too much.

Granted there are much bigger issues with Main Event, but they don't have easy answers, so adding something easy like this shouldn't in any way prevent any solutions to bigger issues.

Never heard this 10x stack idea even mentioned before, so I haven't though much about it, but my first thought was I like it.

Thanks for the opinions. I still feel like the action and the coverage is worth it.

"The dream" will be fine. People think about the WSOP because of the dream, but they don't put up $10k for that. They put up $10k because they are gamblers that love action, and the prestige of this event makes it a bucket list-worthy experience for those dreamers. This kills no dreams. It makes poker more exciting and grows the game. It makes the main event different, larger, more exciting.

All the best,

Clown Pusher

Interesting idea but a massive advantage that amateurs wouldn't be happy about.

I think a nice compromise would be a $100k bounty on the reigning world champion. This would still give the reigning champ an advantage over everyone else.

Daniel Negreanu, Fedor Holz and Elky should get automatic seats at the final table.

I think this is not so good. I don't think there is much need to tamper with the main event like this. Much better is to hold different events. You could hold an event that only has all Main Event champs from previous years competing against each other to be the Century champ or something like that.

I really like the idea of having everyone having an equal shot to winning the Main Event. I also think adding late registration to the Main Event was bad, because it cheapens the prestige of what the Main Event represents. There is almost this poetic element of two players battling it out at the final table knowing that they've both been fighting for it since day 1.

I like the idea of creative things happening in poker events to spice it up, but not to the Main Event. The Main Event is sacred.

I don’t know why they ever changed this, oh wait I do know.

sorry op, terrible idea but your heart is in the right place. I do like the bracelet winners freeroll idea, with staggered starting stacks based on that years results, kinda like the Fedex Cup Championship as I hate that format for golf

What extra coverage? Nobody cares about someone who isn't marketable in the first place possibly making another run. It won't bring in a single extra player but will turn some people off from playing.

I mean you could give Helmuth an average stack with a couple of tables left and get way more coverage than this would ever generate but that doesn't make it a good idea.

There have been 4 back to back WSOP ME champions, THAT had a lot to do with the appeal of the WSOP, BUT did nothing compared to the Online poker amplification of the game, reaching millions of prospective customers for poker. .

We're unlikely to see another back-to-back champion, given the size of the fields

I think this is a terrible idea for most of the reasons others have said. Keep the Main Event as it is.

That said, I would like to see the WSOP add some quirky meta tournaments. Maybe a tournament where there are no rebuys, but a player can buy multiple times the starting stack when buying in. So let's say the tournament is a $3000 buy in tournament. A player can enter for $12,000 and start off with 4 times the starting stack. Furthermore make it a bounty tournament. If $1000 of the entry goes to bounties, the player who bought in for $12,000 has a $4000 bounty on their head.

Things like that that don't change the poker play, but change the meta aspects of the tournament.

I think a tournament such as this would be very geared towards the pros (start with a bigger stack to be able to consistently knock out smaller amateur players). But a middle level pro wouldn't want to overpay and provide an overlay to the better pros. Basically the point of this type of tourney would be to realistically know your place versus the competition. That is why I think it would be great for both the absolute amateurs (which are only going to buy in for thr minimum) and the absolute best tournament pros (who can navigate a decent stack against both amateurs and other pros). An amateur who gets lucky and doubles up a couple of times and is now competing against pros who paid many multiples of what he did is a good story. Plus the best pros would generally be around at the end.

Plus it would be great to see someone just buy in for 1000x (or more) the starting stack and see what happened.