The Art of Progress - WSOP Final Table Rescheduled[ return to main articles page ]

By: shronk
Published on May 3rd, 2008
“The art of progress is to preserve order amid change.” - Alfred North Whitehead. That may as well be Jeffrey Pollack’s motto. No single sports television event has shown the amount of growth in as short amount of time as the World Series of Poker over the last few years. This is almost wholly due to the new ideas and changes put forth by Pollack, Harrah’s, and ESPN. If hastily handled, such drastic and sudden growth could have easily sunk such a huge enterprise. However, the WSOP powers-that-be have demonstrated a commitment to progress, a willingness to admit their mistakes, and dead-on accuracy when it comes to making changes that helped grow the game of poker.

The latest change to the WSOP is the pushing back of the final table of the $10,000 Main Event. Obviously it was met with fierce opposition and criticism (but let’s be honest, is there any change to the WSOP that could be announced without hordes of naysayers screaming their opinions?). People ultimately hate change, and they hate it even more when they perceive it to only be benefitting people that aren’t them. To really understand the benefits of this move, we have to look at how it benefits everyone – including the final table players and the poker community as a whole.

The final nine players will obviously experience unprecedented media and sponsorship opportunities. I think logical minds will agree that the final table becomes infinitely more interesting if we know more about the people involved. I covered the entire WSOP last year and was among the last 20 people to leave the Amazon Room after Jerry Yang took down the title, and right now I couldn’t name five of the final table players. 2007 final table participant Jon Kalmar went deep in the recent WPT Championship at Bellagio and more than one tournament reporter had to ask me who he was. Is there any argument that it would be better for all of us if even more of these guys were stars? This break will allow players to hire agents and break into the mainstream media to bring more viewers to the WSOP, which in turn will bring more players, more money, and more fish.

The final nine players will also benefit from money added to the prize pool. Harrah’s plans on paying out ninth place money to all the final table players and placing the balance of the money (presumably around $20 million) into an interest-bearing account for the ten week delay. The interest accrued off that sum will surely be nothing to scoff at and will be given directly back to the players.

The WSOP fields have slightly shrunk since the passing of the IUGEA. If the reward for final tabling (interest money added to prize pool, more sponsorships, more stardom, and ultimately more money) becomes greater, that will just attract more players to the main event. Along with these new players comes the $10,000 in equity they just added to your tournament, plus the likelihood of one of them gifting off chips to you – more dead money and softer fields sounds like a tournament I’d want to be a part of.

On the surface, ESPN getting higher ratings doesn’t sound like something the average player should care about. If you look deeper, however, you’ll realize that every time poker is shown on a mainstream television network, it helps to legitimize the industry. In the era of the IUGEA and some of the online scandals that we’ve suffered through, the poker industry needs legitimacy to survive. By placing the Main Event front-and-center on one of the biggest networks in the world, high ratings can easily translate into more legitimacy in the eyes of the American public.

There is also an intangible benefit to the delay. If you’re reading this, odds are you’re a fan at heart. The people reading this article are the same people who watch hours and hours of Poker After Dark, High Stakes Poker, World Poker Tour, and probably every single hour of the World Series of Poker broadcast. With this saturation of poker programming, a new way to watch poker would just flat out be exciting for us as fans. I know that having knowledge of how the final tables play out is exponentially less exciting than when I don’t. Even if you feel on the surface this idea is gimmicky, you will almost assuredly be excited leading up to the airing of the semi-live main even final table after weeks of anticipation, media attention, and learning about these players. It’s just going to be good TV.

One of the common outcries of the naysayers has been, “What if one of the players dies in the 10 week delay?” Well, as tragic as that would be, it’s simply so unlikely that it makes an absurd argument. Have any of the main event final table players passed away within 10 weeks of the final table in the last 20 years?

Others are screaming that this will “ruin the integrity of the game.” Yes, the tourney will have a different wrinkle to it, but it would be a mistake if the WSOP was simply satisfied with the status quo and didn’t strive to make the WSOP bigger and better each year. I mean, would the WSOP really be better off if it was still at Binion’s? With only the main event televised? Without hole card cameras? At the advent of all of those changes, poker purists threw up in between shouting that the integrity of the game had been ruined, but these changes have only helped to turn poker into what it is today.

A lot of people have quickly assumed that this change was made purely out of greed. However, if you look back at the history of Jeffrey Pollack and the other “suits,” they clearly demonstrate a genuine desire to make the WSOP better for players and fans alike. They have implemented numerous suggestions from the Player’s Committee, including adding more non-hold ‘em events, adding more $10k events, shortening playing days, and changing structures of events. All of those decisions actually work in direct contradiction to what a business that was only looking out for ratings would want (i.e. more hold ‘em, cramming in more events, and faster structures). They have also demonstrated the willingness to admit their mistakes and correct them as soon as they can. Pollack himself said on the most recent media conference call “the tent clearly didn’t do what we intended it to; there will be no more tent.” He had shown this level of contrition with many of their decisions that didn’t work as planned.

This also proves that the WSOP has the ability to try things out, admit they didn’t work, and then correct them. This is another reason not to be threatened by the final table delay. The worst case scenario is that it doesn’t work, people don’t like it, and they change it back next year.

So with that in mind, why not take a shot at something that has the potential to benefit so many people? It’s good for the WSOP, it’s good for the final table players, and it’s good for the poker community – sounds like the art of progress to me.

* For a contrasting opinion on the WSOP final table rescheduling, P5's members and visitors are encouraged to read Paul "grapsfan" Herzog's article titled Greed Gone Wild.

Comments

  1. <p>I agree with you. We cant be sure if this is a good move or not, but it sure has the ingredients to spice up the game. It's about time the FT gets the attention it deserves.</p>
  2. <p>What a joke !  Who's masterplan was this ? ESPN or the Rio ?</p>
  3. <p>The biggest point that is left out of the debate is if poker is to go the way of say Golf (many many parallells can be draw between how golf emerged as a pro event and what is currently going on now in poker) where the prize pools are paid by sponsors these events better pull in the kinds of cash that golf does. </p>
    <p>We the players talk about all the money we make but for some fortune 500 company is going to fork over 5 million for prize money they have to make at least double or triple that in exposure or potential sales. That means charging for this that and the other thing, cost effective organization of events, and coming up with new and innovative ways to make the product saleable to more non-poker with the additional goal to marginalize anti-poker people.</p>
    <p>Harrahs and ESPN are not perfect and has made mistakes (I cant believe televising side action helps our cause outside the poker community) but the event is profitable and the more profitable it gets the more money we all will make in the long run. Remember one of the top rules of business is a rising tide raises all ships. We as players are small boats on a big ocean but we will benefit down the road. </p>
  4. <p>Good article.  I have read most of the posts during the last few days and feel as if I am the only one that is excited to at least see how this plays out.  It has the potential to be great for poker, and if it flops they will assuredly go back to the traditional format.</p>
  5. <p>good article finally i read a diff opinion bout it...</p>
  6. <p>BEST ARTICLE EVER!</p>
  7. <p>Well written and fatallly flawed. </p>
    <p> This "change" cannot be compared to any other mentioned, this change greatly alters the game itself and what it takes to win the event.   It is a travesty.  </p>
    <p>Is it good for business?   I suppose it is, and that's all that matter's in sport/game/life if we listen to you.    I'll pass.</p>
  8. <p>Comparing moving the tournament from the Horseshoe to the Rio, or televising prelim events, to this change is the only absurdity in what was otherwise a really good article.</p>
    <p>No other change in covering, televising, or promoting the game has provided information about how someone has been playing in the middle of a tournament.  Protecting your image while play is ongoing is indeed important, part of the "integrity" of the game.  I think it's worth screaming over.</p>
    <p>Will the benefits of this change help the game, and trickle down to benefit the players, enough to sacrifice that integrity?  We shall wait and see.</p>
     
  9. <p>Thanks for the article,  I was just wondering if they would add money from the interest barring accounts.</p>
    <p>They are talking about millions on the table and it could make alot of extra cheese in just 4 short months.</p>
  10. <p>Cabo,</p>
    <p>Obviously it's not ALL that matters - but in the end, I think it will the positives (or potential for positives) outweigh the hit to the intergrity of the event.</p>
    <p>-shronk</p>
    Thread Starter
  11. <p>Grapsfan,</p>
    <p>Thanks for the compliment first off.  Second, this change is surely completely different than the others, but it's positive affect could also be greater than the others.</p>
    <p>Basically, I acknowledge that potential for catastrophe is there, but the potential benefits make it worth the gamble - especially since it's so easy to change back.</p>
    <p>-shronk</p>
    Thread Starter
  12. <p>It remains to be seen how this will work out, but I wish all of the supporters would stop trying to sugar coat & convince everyone that this will be of any benefit to anyone in the short run. The long run? Well that remains to be seen.</p>
    <p>This will be a huge potential money maker for a very small hand full of name pros as well as the corporations involved, period.</p>
    <p>Buzz, sponsorships, endorsements??</p>
    <p>When was the last time anyone offered anything but a very small stipend or very end loaded deal (based on finish maybe) to an unknown player in any game or event. They don't.</p>
    <p>Extra cash?</p>
    <p>The extra cash from the months of delay are nothing compared to what will be made by the corporations involved & again as very small group of known pros.</p>
    <p>Will this help out the game? I remains to be seen. This will be a great situation for any known, bankable pro who may make the final table. Endorsement/sponsorships may be greater than 1st place money. But, Please stop trying to present this as a great thing for 99.9% of the players involved, including most of what will sure be unknown final table players. </p>
  13. <p>Acesfull,</p>
    <p>Even if it isn't a "great thing for 99.9%" of players, what exactly makes it bad for them?  If a change will benefit a small number of people greatly and be virtually benign to the rest, then utilitarianism says the change is good.</p>
    Thread Starter
  14. <p>Great article.  Yes, the delay isn't the most perfect solution.  Far from it.  But poker is a business, just like the NFL is a business.  If the bottom line isn't being met, if poker as a whole is waning in popularity like it is, something must change.  In 2004, a lot of the attraction to the new player watching the WSOP Main Event week to week was the mystery.  Back then, not everyone checked a site like p5 every day.  Every episode was fresh, and we were able to see hands like they were happening right at that moment.</p>
    <p>Well, now the excitement is gone.  As soon as someone wins an event, especially the Main Event, the poker world knows about it.  In the case of the Main Event, easily the most watched event on the circuit, most everyone knows the winner well before it airs on television.  The mystery has disappeared.</p>
    <p>It seems like the underlying effort behind the final table delay is to bring back the excitement.  Hopefully this will spark something in the average viewer who doesn't already play, and there are plenty potential customers out there.  Hopefully they will play a tournament next time they are in Vegas, or maybe make their first increasingly difficult deposit online.</p>
    <p>In the long term, this helps the rest of us that have some experience.  New players are what makes poker profitable.  While I agree that a few month delay is not ideal, I don't believe that it makes the event not worth playing.  It is an effort by the powers that be to bring the excitement back to the televised Main Event, which is what caused most poker players these days to begin playing in the first place.</p>
  15. <p>Shronk,</p>
    <p>Well written article.  I hope that this change has a positive effect on the game...we shall see.</p>
  16. <p>Kudo's to AJNVT for finding the "problem" that is being solved with a move. </p>
    <p> Now we can get the results for free instead of watching the game taped with commercials and other placement ads.  This year want the resutls in real time we have to watch the live feed and the internet will follow behind. </p>
    <p>As far as some others remarks. I hope it does benefit the top pros. They are far more entertaining than most newbie nternet players.  While the newbies are very talented they dont know how to be entertaining for TV.  I remember the WPT-PCA last year. I thought the play was awful and the show dull. </p>
    <p>I would rather have a bunch of experienced TV pros and a few new hot shots.  No matter who gets to the final table there will now be TV pros behind them with inside commentary on the player they helped (remember Chan and Jamie Gold? Expect more of that.) There will be our favorite pro player, if not in the game, in the audience offering on the fly advice.  </p>
    <p>People just keep an open mind. This could be very interesting.</p>
  17. <p>I don't think many people have realised that this is a major CF. Ok I reach the final table because its a crap shoot and I'm running good I might have a chance to win the WSOP.</p>
    <p>Forward 5 months I have been running bad can't play I'm out in 8th good money but when there is 9 on the FT you want the title.</p>
    <p>As expected, this news has received a mixed reaction. Comments have been made with a multitude of questions being asked, but Harrah;’s has asked that the poker community place their trust in them to run a professional event and deal with any problems that may arise. </p>
    <p>Some concerns are what happens if a player cannot make it back to play in the final table? What is the risk of collusion? What about deal making? Will the players be safe from any threats that may be made? </p>
    <p>Harrah’s is asking for the trust of the poker community, but knows it is impossible to predict every possible situation.</p>
    <p>Harrah's just remember me when I spend $2000 to fly over from the UK and watch the WSOP main event and the final table I really don't want to be flying back in November.</p>
    <p>Its gone weird. I predict it won't work.</p>
  18. <p>the point about interest and a 'bigger prize pool' is totally moot, because players would immediately put the money into an interest bearing account after winning, and thus earn the same interest on that money.  You'd think you could do better than bank interest yourself actually.</p>
    2
  19. <p>this would be understandable if they did it for every major tournament, WPT main events, EPT main events etc. Every large tourny delayed its FT until after the prelim episodes were made would be progress, just like hole card camera's. </p>
    <p>This isnt.</p>
  20. <p>ok so 10 weeks isnt 16 weeks.  Thats good news so less chance at some things happening.  Ya so if you donk ass in 6th place, your gonna be "famous" and everyone will know you.  Eh..id rather be forgotten and have immunity from being famous.  You dont remember who was at the previous final tables?  great!  You want to know everyone at the final table?  Ef that.</p>
    <p>Answer this, </p>
    <p>Are they gonna show every hand at the final table?  Is this gonna be a 12 hr broadcast?  Are we gonna lose our option to watch it online and see every hand?</p>
    <p>Explain to me how they will benefit from becomming "famous" after we know all about them and they still lose?  </p>
    <p>As a fan, i hate this..i guess as a player, eh screw it.. i still hate this.  I want my internet 12 hour live party and you shouldnt take that away from me dammit!!!!</p>
     
 
Page 1 of 21 2

Return to Articles

Quick Navigation