World Series of Poker limits |
|
Posted Sat May 28, 2005 3:23 pm GMT by rakewhore
does anyone know how many players the wsop will be limited to this year and what the first prize will be?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Sat May 28, 2005 3:41 pm GMT by Magra
All non main events will be maxed at 2000
i think the main event is no max
Posted Sat May 28, 2005 3:49 pm GMT by supafrey
How would they know the 1st prize before the entries are even closed? 
Posted Sat May 28, 2005 5:50 pm GMT by Pinnacle
This year's Main Event is capped at 6,000 with 600 alternates.
Posted Sun May 29, 2005 10:32 am GMT by Cyberhwk
| Pinnacle wrote: | | This year's Main Event is capped at 6,000 with 600 alternates. |
It's kind of sad in a way. Best description I've heard...it's going to be a freeroll with a $10,000 buy-in.
Posted Sun May 29, 2005 11:53 am GMT by myluckyhand
| Cyberhwk wrote: | | Pinnacle wrote: | | This year's Main Event is capped at 6,000 with 600 alternates. |
It's kind of sad in a way. Best description I've heard...it's going to be a freeroll with a $10,000 buy-in. |
But this is what makes poker so great, even the average player can get lucky one day and win something like the WSOP. And the day the average player is wins is a good day for all of us. It means more players online wanting to make it big too... which means more fish.
Posted Mon May 30, 2005 9:37 am GMT by Cyberhwk
| myluckyhand wrote: | | But this is what makes poker so great, even the average player can get lucky one day and win something like the WSOP. |
Which is good for us and I agree.
But the winner is put on the wall with the likes of Johnny Chan, Doyle Brunson, and Stu Unger. These are the best poker players to ever LIVE. Does your "average player with a lucky day" really deserve to be considered in the same group?
I guess it just bugs me that fantastic poker players that have paid their dues and study the game are going to have to wade through (and some, sure to get knocked out by) a bunch of self-important wealthy suburbanites that are treating it as a vacation.
The most famous poker competition of them all = just another summer get away... 
Posted Tue May 31, 2005 1:49 pm GMT by Loonbat
This is why the WSOP is no longer the golden standard for who is the best ...
Posted Tue May 31, 2005 2:00 pm GMT by Dave B
Are you guys insane?
When is the last time an average player won the WSOP.....NEVER. Maybe Varkoni, but although he was horribly lucky, to say he was an "average" poker player is really short sighted.
The last few winners were VERY VERY good players that got lucky. They are not great players, but much better than average.
Even the greatest player needs luck to survive a deep field of players.
Posted Tue May 31, 2005 2:02 pm GMT by Dias
Have to agree
Moneymaker and Raymer are good players, maybe not the best, but good
Moneymaker showed HUGE cajones in the final table with some of the moves he made, and he made good laydowns at times also.
Raymer played well, he played hardcore big stack poker.....you wanted to play a hand he was in, you paid to stay...
Granted, people say they won alot of races to win....but thats the name of the game.
Posted Tue May 31, 2005 2:57 pm GMT by flafishy
Also what you must understand is that this ain't no online tournament where it becomes an all-in fest by the sixth or seventh level. Starting stacks in the Main Event are huuuuuuuuuge (T10,000) compared to the starting blinds (15/20, I believe), and the blinds move up very slowly, something like every 90 minutes or two hours. Which gives the top players a hell of a lot of time to recover from a lucky hit by some chump.
Posted Tue May 31, 2005 3:19 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Another thing to consider is in any game the best player or team doesn't always win the big championships in any game or sport. That's what makes it entertaining.
Posted Tue May 31, 2005 6:21 pm GMT by tame_deuces
If you look at some of the hand histories from older main events...say 80-99......some of those guys got very lucky on some hands too. And the fields were often only 100-300 players. So a little luck at the right time could land you the entire tournament, which is abit harder in a 2000-6000 player tourney.
Posted Tue May 31, 2005 6:52 pm GMT by Geno
Both Raymer and Moneymaker have proven themselves since their WSOP wins so to date, all WSOP winners have been worthy. I think sour grapes creep in to some people's opinions of those two.........
Posted Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:45 am GMT by flafishy
| Geno wrote: | | Both Raymer and Moneymaker have proven themselves since their WSOP wins so to date, all WSOP winners have been worthy. I think sour grapes creep in to some people's opinions of those two......... |
And a lot of the opinions I'm sure have to do with the TV mentality. "He just kept getting lucky." Well, yeah, they did on some of the very few hands they chose to show on TV. You didn't see the tons of hands they won by playing routinely solid poker because they ain't too exciting.
|
|
