Quote:
Originally Posted by zoogenhiem
I love re-entries in general. Bigger prizepools, you don't have to go home if you came a long way to play, and generally worse play during the re-entry period from people who are willing to re-enter if they bust.
The one time I am against re-entries is for WSOP bracelet events. If a bracelet means anything anymore, then everyone should have 1 shot per event to take it down. And the beauty of the WSOP series is if you bust a tournament, there are a gazillion more for you to play. With that said, I can live with it in the restricted events (seniors, ladies, casino employees) that don't count towards bracelet records, but I still think it diminishes something, and it would be very disappointing for it to be rolled out to all events. Unlike most venues, the WSOP doesn't have a prizepool issue. They don't even guarantee most of the events!
The proliferation of bracelet events alone has watered down the meaningfulness of those bracelet records. However, I do agree, bracelet events ought to be freeze-outs.
That's in a perfect world, of course. The things is, the WSOP is owned by a casino/hotel enterprise which couldn't care less about poker. I imagine there are individuals within the WSOP who do care, but the parent organization, as a whole, does not, above and beyond the ability to make a good profit from it. There's nothing ethically wrong with that, but we, as poker players, need to realize its rare that the WSOP makes decisions which are in the best interest of the game, particularly when doing so would hurt profits.
Its no secret that Caesars has been trying to sell the WSOP. So, they're going to do everything in their power to maximize the real and imagined value of that asset. If that means increasing revenues by a small percentage by introducing more re-entries, they will do that.