Monday, June 08, 2015

The Strangest Race

Was listening earlier to the PokerNews Podcast where Jason Somerville, Donnie Peters, and Remko Rinkema are getting together in the Rio hallway every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to talk about what’s happening at this year’s World Series of Poker. Have started to realize listening to these guys chatting for a couple of hours three times a week has become my primary way of following the WSOP.

I’ll read the recaps on PokerNews, follow the back-and-forthings on Twitter some, and occasionally visit Two Plus Two to see what the latest gripe is. I’m also tuning into the final table live streams over on WSOP.com which have been quite good, with better production values and graphics than what has generally been the case over there in the past.

I’m not sweating every event as I tended to do last year, but am still enjoying following some of the finishes. As far as getting deeper into what’s interesting about a given event or how the latest scandal is (or is not) being handled, though, I feel like just sitting in on the PNPod guys’ discussions has kept me as in tune as I want to be with the day-to-day out there this time around.

Today on the show one of the topics discussed was the WSOP Player of the Year race, which I mentioned here a couple of weeks ago is this year being newly “powered” (i.e., sponsored) by the Global Poker Index. It’s also thoroughly out of whack, predictably so as Jess Welman and others noted it would be even before things got started.

Among the strange examples Donnie cited today was the case of Cord Garcia (a.k.a. Lance Garcia), winner of that crazy Colossus (Event No. 5) that drew 22,374 entrants. Garcia also picked up a small cash in the Millionaire Maker (Event No. 16).

Garcia is one of only 15 bracelet winners thus far; however, those achievements are only enough to put Garcia in 230th place (!) in the WSOP POY race at the moment. No shinola. He earned nearly as many points, actually, for finishing 652nd in the Milly Maker (101.71 pts.) as he did for winning the Colossus (128.92 pts.). (Click the pic above to details of his current ranking.)

In fact, the current leader Paul Volpe (who has two runner-ups and a 12th-place finish already) has about five times as many POY points as Garcia. Garcia could have won the Millionaire Maker, too, and then gone on to win the Monster Stack (Event No. 28) and the Little One for One Drop (Event No. 61) and still would finish with less points than Volpe already has through the first two weeks.

That’s because (as Jess pointed out in her pre-WSOP post) all of these events feature buy-ins of $1,500 or less, and according to the GPI formula are diminished in value, POY points-wise, relative to the bigger buy-in tournaments. By a lot.

I’m of the group that tends to view the whole POY thing as a diverting bit of trivia, hardly of central significance to the WSOP. But the formula being used is so strange and non-intuitive, it’s hard to assign much importance to it at all.

The imbalance in favor of bigger buy-in events also makes it a race many players are essentially not even able to participate in, which as the PNPod guys noted is too bad for Garcia and others who might’ve earned a little more notice had their wins gotten them into those POY conversations.

Then again, I guess Garcia was in a POY conversation -- for being out of the running, that is, and not a contender.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 03, 2015

Crazy Parallels

“When are the finals already? Or did the NBA decide to do the November Nine thing, too?”

Tweeted that last night while waiting out yet another off day until the NBA Finals finally gets started tomorrow following a seven-day gap since the end of the last round.

Really does feel like a WSOP Main Event-style delay, with all the banged-up players getting a chance to recover before the Cleveland Cavaliers and Golden State Warriors finally get on the court.

Today I saw ESPN explaining how the two teams’ best players -- Stephen Curry and LeBron James -- were in fact born in the same hospital in Akron, Ohio, about three years and three months apart. It’s true!

Speaking of crazy parallels, Tuan Le’s victory in the $10K 2-7 Triple Draw event yesterday (Event No. 7) was kind of nuts, given that he’d won the same event a year ago.

Earlier this week Robert Mizrachi also won another bracelet after winning one a year ago, taking down the $1,500 Omaha Hi/Lo (Event No. 3). That’s his third bracelet and 35th WSOP cash. Was listening to the latest Two Plus Two Pokercast where they pointed out only one other person has exactly three bracelets and 35 cashes -- Michael Mizrachi.

Of course that’s nothing compared to what happened tonight at the conclusion of the $565 Colossus (Event No. 5). Out of 22,374 entries, two guys rooming together in Las Vegas this summer made the final table -- and they nearly made it to heads-up.

Ray Henson started today ninth of nine, but climbed all of the way back into the chip lead for a time before falling in third. Then his roomie Cord Garcia won the sucker. (That is Garcia on the left above with Henson on the right just after the latter busted.)

Both are from Houston and have known each other for 10 years and are rooming together, which seems too wild to be true.

But it is true. All of it. No shinola!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 02, 2015

The Good and the Bad (So Far)

A quick post tonight just to point you to another more considered read from someone at the World Series of Poker.

Dan Goldman is a poker player who has an extensive background that includes having been involved on the executive level at PokerStars during its early days (and into the “boom” years). On his blog, Braindump v1.0, he has shared some stories from those times that are definitely worth reading for those with an interest in the early era of online poker.

Today Goldman shares a post titled “WSOP 2015: Has anything changed?” in which he revisits a post he wrote a year ago titled “Six ways Caesars screwed up the World Series of Poker.” In the post he looks at the first week of this year’s WSOP and assesses the degree to which those items from the earlier post have or have not been addressed.

He adds to that discussion some further thoughts related to the Colossus, which is now playing down to a final table and looks as though it will be extending into an extra day tomorrow to complete. He makes some points about registration problems and payout delays (you might have read about the latter over on PokerNews), then adds “one last rant” about how the WSOP was responding to complaints and concerns over Twitter Sunday night. (I alluded to that brouhaha yesterday.)

I like how Goldman is articulating his concerns and find myself agreeing with him on most counts. So I thought I’d point you over there today for the thoughts of someone who has been a little closer to the action these last several days.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, June 01, 2015

Riding the Colossus

Over the weekend I gave some time along with many other poker people tracking how that “Colossus” (Event No. 5) was playing out at the World Series of Poker, marveling as others did at the numbers it was producing.

The name sounds like what you might call a roller coaster, and in fact there was a well known ride at Six Flags Magic Mountain in California called the Colossus. That was the one you see in National Lampoon’s Vacation (the “Screemy Meemy”), and I’m reading it also turns up in the classic KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park, although the ride is now closed due to a fire last year.

Was a fast, wild, bumpy ride for the poker Colossus, too, the last couple of days.

I appreciated some of the things regarding the $565 buy-in event Jason Somerville, Remko Rinkema, and Donnie Peters discussed on the Friday episode of the PokerNews Podcast, in particular what they had to say regarding the Colossus functioning as many players’ “Main Event” (more or less) as far as the WSOP was concerned. It was also interesting to see the reports of poker rooms all around Las Vegas booming with business, too, as a side effect of the event bringing so many poker players to Sin City.

The final total came to 22,734 entries (about 5K over my guess), a number that includes the many, many re-entries as players could fire up to four times. I’d expected to hear something around that number (or a little less) as the total prior to players getting their refunds for unused entries, but it sounds like that total comes after subtracting those, as there were 25,571 “raw, paid entries” altogether.

As the guys on the “PN Pod” discussed -- and as many others who played the event were tweeting about, too -- there were a lot of first-time WSOP players in the Colossus. Would be interesting to know exactly how many were playing their first ever WSOP event, or even just a rough percentage. Perhaps half? More?

[EDIT (added 6/3/15): The WSOP did release further Colossus stats, noting there were 14,284 unique players and that 5,664 of them -- just a tad under 40% -- were playing in their first ever WSOP event.]

The crew’s sentiments about it shaping up to be an especially positive experience not just for the newcomers, but for the experienced players, too, were all convincing.

As you’ve surely heard by now, 22,734 entries translated to a prize pool of $11,187,000 to be divided by the top 2,241 finishers (a little over 10% of the field). They already made it to the money last night, in fact, with no less than nine all-ins during the final hand of hand-for-hand play.

Of course, if you were following things last night you know that the excitement of the bubble bursting was basically set to the side thanks to the animated response to the announcement of the prize pool, in particular to the $636,880 up top for the winner. That figure surprised many who thought first place in a tournament with that many entries and a $11,187,000 prize pool would at least pay a milly to the one managing to survive the record-crushing field.

Not having any particular skin in the game made it easier for me to be entertained watching the Twitter feed last night as people took up either side of arguments regarding “flat” payouts, the “Golden Ratio,” the relationship of rake to payouts (or lack thereof), and so on. Defensive (and in some cases even seemingly dismissive) responses from the WSOP’s Twitter feed served to add further drama.

Marty Derbyshire does a great job summarizing last night’s immediate reaction over on PokerNews, if you missed that. Jeremiah Smith also has a good morning-after piece today over at All In where he focuses on the WSOP’s not having made clear beforehand the possibility of this particular payout schedule should the event draw the 20K-plus entries they were saying they expected it would.

Sort of felt a little like watching a movie in which the “Colossus” was this awesomely big, frightening-looking creature who turned out to be cuddly and lovable, someone everyone in the story liked. Then suddenly he starts breaking things and wreaking havoc, which might well have been expected given his size, but since everyone had been lulled into thinking they’d always like everything about him they all reacted with surprise.

I’m still on the side of those thinking the event ultimately seems as though it is (or will be) mostly positive, all things considered. And perhaps after this first wild ride it will serve to teach some lessons to players and tournament organizers alike -- also a positive.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 25, 2015

Colossus Counting and Other Poker Predictions

The 2015 World Series of Poker is just two days away from starting. Just saw this afternoon both BLUFF and PokerNews post predictions for the upcoming series, and I imagine the other sites are going to be following suit with similar posts posthaste.

As part of the PN squad I have my guesses included in there over on PokerNews, if you’re curious. I’ll admit that after hearing the buzz building over the last week or so regarding the “Colossus” -- the $565 buy-in Event No. 5 that begins this Friday -- I revised upwards my guess what the field size will be for that one.

According to the “Colossus Important Details” handout the WSOP has created, capacity for the four “Day 1” flights (taking place over two days) totals 24,200 (I’m adding up what they’ve listed for each of the four). They warn those playing the event “We do not have unlimited capacity and expect some if not all flights to fill to our limits.”

Guesses among both the PN and BLUFF guys range from 12,500 to 27,000. I guessed 17,819. More than 8,773 will represent the largest live tourney ever in terms of field size, of course, meaning that record is certainly going to be dust by the weekend.

Lots of other guesses about field sizes and players in the two articles -- see the PokerNews one here, the BLUFF one here.

How many do you think will play the Colossus?

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

One More Week

The 2015 World Series of Poker begins a week from today, and like most in the poker world my attention will be mostly occupied by what happens in the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino over the following seven weeks or so. (That here-it-comes-ready-or-not photo from the Twitter feed of WSOP.com’s Bill Rini.)

Like like summer I’m likely sticking close to the farm, albeit still attuned to the proceedings happening around 1,900 miles west. Curious, too, to see how it all gets covered, including the WSOP handling the live updates itself this time rather than have PokerNews “power” those as has been done since 2007. (Was using that verb in yesterday’s post, too.)

To me the most interesting story will be how the numbers go. Every year since, well, the “boom,” it seems, predictions have been that fields will be smaller, although they’ve continued to hold steady each and every year. I suppose smart money would predict another relatively even year -- right at or a little above the last. But like watching another runout following an ace-king vs. queens all in, it’s still somehow interesting to watch what happens.

Particular events will be of interest, too, with that crazy “Colossus” (the $565 buy-in one coming a week from Friday) likely to set a tone of sorts for what comes thereafter. The WSOP as a whole is an incredible logistical puzzle each year, so for this one event with its multiple, overlapping starting flights and anticipated record-breaking field will be quite a feat to see.

With everyone else, am staying tuned.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Considering the Colossus

Got that note along with everyone else this week from the World Series of Poker about the $565 buy-in “Colossus” event that will help kick off this year’s WSOP in late May.

That’s the one featuring a big $5 million guaranteed prize pool, which means in order to meet the guarantee at least 10,000 will be playing. Which means, in turn, if that guarantee is met it’ll be the biggest field for a live tournament ever, topping the 8,773 that played the Main Event in 2006.

From this distance of two-plus months out, that total of 10,000 seems not unlikely. But it sounds like the WSOP is expecting well over that -- like 15,000 or even 20,000 -- or at least that’s what WSOP VP of Corporate Communications Seth Palansky is saying.

Just skimming through the “basics” (as well as the structure sheet) and other tips to would-be players regarding registration is a little bit head-spinning. There will be four Day 1 flights total occurring during two days of play, with flights starting at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. each day and each racing through ten 40-minute levels (meaning they’ll last a little less than eight hours apiece).

There is a reentry option, although players can only enter one time per flight, and aren’t allowed to reenter if they bag a stack at the end of a flight. They can, if they wish, forfeit a stack at night’s end (say a super-short one) and play a subsequent Day 1 flight, but they have to make that choice prior to bagging. After all of those Day 1s are done, they have three more days’ of poker scheduled to complete the sucker, although in the “FYI” list of items is a note that it could well extend one extra day.

Players are advised to preregister, but there are plans in place to seat a couple of “Late Waves” in each of the four Day 1 flights. I’m not even going to start to try to summarize it all -- you can read through the explanation yourself over at WSOP.com. Suffice it to say, when Palansky refers to the event as “a big operational challenge,” that sounds like understatement.

If only there were another word for “big.”

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, December 26, 2014

WSOP Guarantees Debate

The announcement of next year’s World Series of Poker dates came on December 23, just in time for this next week-and-a-half or so when the tournament poker circuit goes relatively quiet until the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure cranks up. Thus those who tend to give a lot of attention to the WSOP have plenty of down time right now to discuss and debate what was included in the presser.

I guess it didn’t matter much what the WSOP announced in its annual teaser -- that there would be criticism and debate was pretty much a guarantee, anyway.

The WSOP will run from May 27, 2015 through July 14, 2015, with the “November Nine” format for the Main Event again in place for an eighth straight year. There are a couple of new events listed, the most notable being a $565 buy-in tournament with a $5 million guarantee dubbed “The Colossus.” That one will have multiple starting flights and re-entries available (one per flight), and will come at the very beginning of the summer (starting May 29).

The Las Vegas Sun has reported that “organizers expect more than 13,000 entries” in the Colossus. I assume they’ll need at least 10,000 to meet that guarantee -- that will be more than sufficient to set a record as the largest field in a WSOP event ever.

Searching back through WSOP history, I think the last time there was an “open” bracelet event with less than a $1,000 buy-in -- i.e., not the Casino Employees event, the Ladies event, or the “Mixed Doubles” event they had for a few years -- was 1980 when there was a $500 seven-card stud event on the schedule. Even the Seniors event has always had a $1,000 buy-in.

Speaking of the Seniors event, the announcement mentions it will be returning again (along with the Ladies Championship), with another $1K buy-in “Super Seniors” event for players 65 and older also to be added this time around.

Other events returning include the “Millionaire Maker,” the “Monster Stack,” the “ONE DROP High Roller” (for $111,111), and the “Little One for ONE DROP,” all following previously employed formats. Also back is that first-place prize guarantee of $10 million for the Main Event winner, a decision which appears to have elicited the most fervent discussion among those chattering about the announcement in my Twitter feed.

As I recall, that idea to guarantee $10 million for the Main Event winner last year was tied to the WSOP celebrating its 10th year at the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino. It was in 2005 that the move from Binion’s to the Rio was made, although they did finish out the last couple of days of the Main Event back at Binion’s that year (when Joe Hachem won).

The connection to the 10th year anniversary made it seem as though the change to the payouts might only be a one-shot deal -- kind of like that $40K no-limit hold’em tournament added to the schedule back in 2009 that corresponded to the 40th year of the WSOP and wasn’t brought back again thereafter.

But the $10 milly first prize is back again. And now there is a lot of back-and-forthing going on about whether or not that’s a good or bad thing.

With that first-place prize guarantee in place a year ago, the overall turnout for the WSOP Main Event increased from 6,352 to 6,683, the first increase since 2010. While it’s hard to say how much the $10 milly up top mattered to those who entered without surveying them, it isn’t too much of a reach to think the WSOP saw some correlation and thus were encouraged to bring back the first-place prize guarantee.

According to the payout schedules the WSOP has been using over the last few years, the first-place prizes have typically been hovering around the $8.5 million range. In 2013, Ryan Riess won $8,359,232 for topping a field of 6,352; in 2012, Greg Merson won $8,531,853 for coming out on top of 6,598; in 2011, Pius Heinz earned $8,715,638 for winning a Main Event in which 6,895 played. Estimating a similar turnout in 2014 meant adding around $1.5 million then to eventual winner Martin Jacobson’s take-away.

That $1.5 million or so obviously was shaved off of what the other 692 players who made the money earned for their cashes. Second-place finisher Felix Stephensen won $5,147,911, approximately $150,000 less than he would have made according to the payout schedule used the year before. Meanwhile those who min-cashed the Main Event in 2014 earned $18,406, which I believe was a little under $1K less than they would have made via the old model (e.g., in 2011 when 693 also made the money the min-cashers made $19,359).

Those objecting to the $10-million-up-top idea are expressing doubts about the extent of it being a real selling point to would-be players, especially the non-pros. They are also criticizing the lessening of payouts for spots No. 2 through No. 693 (or whatever the total number of players cashing turns out to be in 2015). Some are petitioning for a payout schedule in which everyone making the final table would earn at least $1 million (something only possible according to the current structure if around 8,000 play the Main Event, I believe) and/or one in which the top 1,000 finishers get paid (which would obviously make it difficult also to have guarantees up top).

I can’t really pretend to feel all that passionately one way or the other on this one. I don’t play the Main Event, and while I have been reporting on it for many years now, the difference in payouts caused by the $10 million first-place guarantee doesn’t have much effect on the tourney’s narrative or the many reasons why it’s such a compelling event.

On the one hand, I’m not enthused about making the Main Event even more unlike other tournaments via a skewed payout structure. However, looking back at the history of the Main Event the payouts were pretty much always skewed in a similar way up until 2007 with the rounding off of first-place prizes, including many years (1991-1999) of making it $1 million regardless of the number of entrants. So arguing for “tradition” doesn’t really work for those opposed to the first-place guarantee.

Here’s a chart the WSOP put out showing how the payouts would work with variously-sized fields, and it shows how they need at least around 6,400 to play for second-place prize money to be greater than $5 million or half what the winner gets. The chart also shows the big problems that a steep decline in the turnout would create with that guarantee in place, making for a very top-heavy payout schedule.

Perhaps more than any other poker tournament, the WSOP Main Event highlights the divide between pros and amateurs (or recreational players) thanks to how much of the field is usually comprised of the latter. It is interesting how having the first-place prize guarantee seems for some to highlight this divide even more, and how it has drawn extra attention to the importance of keeping poker interesting and attractive to non-professionals (a subtext much of the debate thus far).

We’ll see how the conversation continues over the next 10 days until the PCA comes along to distract everyone.

Labels: , , ,


Older Posts

Copyright © 2006-2021 Hard-Boiled Poker.
All Rights Reserved.