Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Updated: May 7, 10:46 AM ET
What were they thinking?
By Gary Wise ESPN Poker Club
Editor's note: Gary Wise spoke to players who both like and dislike the latest changes made to the WSOP main event. Be sure to read each side of the argument, then join the conversation by leaving a comment below.
I've been on the phone more or less nonstop since the World Series of Poker announced it will delay the start of the final table of the 2008 main event. Everyone has an opinion, everyone wants to know more, and just about everyone wants to bring the world around to their way of thinking.
The players who are against the most drastic change to hit the poker world since the hole card camera have some good reasons to be worried as they see this as the defilement of poker's most sacred tradition.
It was Todd Brunson, the son of Doyle, who responded to the news with, "This is poker, not a TV show." He was half-right -- the World Series of Poker was around long before ESPN cameras became a staple of the event.
Greg Raymer feels that this long gap allows the players to become completely different people prior to play in November.
Television has undoubtedly contributed to the game's growth, but before there was growth, there was the game. Binion's is gone and along with it the age of keeping your cards closer to your chest than your hole card camera, but for some, the World Series is a reminder of our history, a family reunion where everyone comes home to Vegas and crowns a champion together. An empty, makeshift studio is not the way for the event of events to end.
TV commentator Ali Nejad brought up an interesting point: "I worry about this particular bracelet suffering the asterisk effect of a Barry Bonds home run ball, since players will have the opportunity to obtain massive amounts of coaching." Taking the point a step further, once you tarnish the bracelet, can it ever be untarnished?
Some of the reasons why many players are not so enthused:
They see an opportunity for corruption, mostly in the form of collusion.
The thing that many proponents keep going back to is that if this doesn't work out, we can always go back to the ways of old, but others worry the damage dealt to the poker community could be catastrophic. "If people get caught colluding, it will be really bad for poker in the mainstream media," Hoyt Corkins says. The cowboy is right.
While collusion is a factor in other events, never before has so much opportunity existed for its implementation. Not only will the final table players, spending almost four months on the same PR circuit, have time to get to know one another, hatch plans and hammer out agreements, there's also the possibility that poker's dark past could catch up to it in the form of coercion. Says Todd Brunson, "I am very worried about collusion, which will happen."
They see the playing field being leveled in a way that it couldn't be in another structure.
Poker is supposed to reward skill and punish weakness. The belief of many is that this new format will allow the weaker links ample opportunity to steepen the learning curve in preparing for the final table. "If the chip leader is somebody you play against regularly either online or at your local casino, of course I am going to come to you for advice," former world champion Greg Raymer says. The amount of research the players could conceivably do on one another is staggering, and changes the name of the game from winning hands to networking. That's not poker.
"How can one reasonably argue," Mark Seif asks, "that such a long delay at the most critical of junctures won't unfairly and adversely affect some players while unfairly helping others?" The only answer seems to be that everyone knows what they're paying for and that they don't have to if they don't like it. That seems a harsh line though on a tournament that, over decades, has become so much more than just a tournament.
Mark Seif believes this move was not in the best interest of the players.
They see coaching and the time differential having a major influence on the integrity of the final table.
What happened to one player per hand? Where once, poker was about the individual, now it's about getting the best instruction money can buy. Isabelle Mercier, the ferocious Canadian pro, worries that coaches will alter the destiny of the table. "It would probably favor the amateurs who would have time to train with a pro in exchange of a percentage of the winnings," she said.
WPT Player of the Year Jon Little agrees:
"I had heard speculation but didn't know it was actually going to happen. That gives the people at the final table three months to spend a lot of money and use a lot of time learning how to play the game well, assuming they don't already know how. Also, the players could play totally different from when you last played with them, which usually doesn't happen overnight."
The players, the logic goes, will not be the same players four months later. They won't be the same people who put up the $10,000, nor the same people others put up $10,000 to play against. Of all of our respondents, only Dewey Tomko saw this as a good thing for the pros: "I think the better player will have a reward, since the amateurs will be less dangerous after they get some coaching."
They see the flow of the tournament disrupted.
"As a player you are in a special mood during a tourney and any break or interruption is bad for the game. It would feel like a new tourney," said 2007 bracelet winner Katja Thater. She's hardly alone in the sentiment.
"Can you imagine a golf tournament being paused for four months for the final nine holes?" Seif asks. "What about waiting that long to play the Super Bowl after the playoffs are over? The NBA championship? World Series of baseball? I understand the goal is to provide 'close to live' TV coverage. But we already know that can be accomplished without such a ridiculously long delay."
The end of a poker tournament should be similar to the end of a marathon. The player practices patience and skill to get to the final lap, then expends what remains of their energy to try to take the title. In the present scenario, the marathoner gets to stop after Mile 25, take a few weeks to recuperate, then sprint to the finish line. It's hardly a test of human endeavor any more.
Said Mike Matusow: "All the pros that agree with it are [friendly with] Harrah's. They think it's the best thing, but I think it is horrible. This is the most horrific thing to happen to poker. Ever."
We wish we could be so eloquent.
In seeking thoughts on the new final table scheme, ESPN talked to a plethora of poker personalities, who responded en masse and with conviction. Below, you'll find the words of those commentators who were opposed to the idea in our conversations:
"Besides, the excitement of the WSOP is all about the clock ticking down, the blinds going up and the field gradually reducing from thousands to hundreds to dozens to one world champion! If the whole thing was put on pause until November, all that tension and excitement would be dissipated for spectators and fans. Personally, when November comes round, I'm all excited about the new EPT season and I don't care about the WSOP any more until the following year."
-- Victoria Coren
"TV dictating to sport, as usual in the US, is something we here in Europe don't like at all. But I'm delighted the WSOP has postponed the final table to coincide with publication in November of my new book 'Holden on Hold'em.' It will give old-timers like me time to rest up after the exertions of making it that far. But the flight back to Vegas will be taxing … and my main concern will be dying of shock [or just exhaustion] before the cameras begin to roll again."
-- Anthony Holden, author
"There is nothing wrong with having a promotional time frame in which to market and highlight such a great event. They do it with the Super Bowl, but I don't think playing should be suspended for more than two weeks."
-- Kenna James
"I feel it's a big tease to people who want to wake up the next day and win the big bucks. I mean what this infers is that people have to play six to seven days straight just to wait three months before they can seal the deal. I think that this idea is fresh, but needs some more adjusting and review among the poker consensus."
-- Hevad Khan
I think it is a terrible idea to delay the WSOP final table three months. I had heard speculation but didn't know it was actually going to happen. That gives the people at the final table three months to spend a lot of money and use a lot of time learning how to play the game well, assuming they don't already know how. Also, the players could play totally different from when you last played with them, which usually doesn't happen overnight. The one good thing that might come from it is that the players may somehow be able to leverage a lot more endorsement money because of a longer time for the sites to outbid each other."
-- Jon Little
"I'm not sure what to think. For sure the delayed final would give some great exposure to the finalists and plenty of time to get in good shape for the final. But it would probably favor the amateurs who would have time to train with a pro in exchange of a percentage of the winnings. My opinion, they should play the final straight with the tournament and not months later."
-- Isabelle Mercier
"To me it doesn't seem like a great idea, mainly because of the advantage given to some players. The current method of pay-per-view without hole cards seems good enough to me."
-- Steve Paul-Ambrose
Gary Wise contributes regularly for espn.com and talks incessantly about poker's comings and goings on 'Wise Hand Poker Radio', broadcast Wednesday, 8 p.m. at roundersradio.com.
