Hey guys, I just wrote a pretty interesting column on why I think the WSOP should up the buy-in to $250,000 (yes $250,000). check it out here

Steve, interesting article and obviously well thought out. I wanted to share my opinion.

Increasing the buy-in would have an effect on the player pool, but I don't think it would be as drastic as one might think. How many WSOP main event packages does PokerStars award each year? Then consider how many people vie for those packages. Sure a lot of people wouldn't buy-in at $1000, but why not add another level for $40 where 1 in 25 get a buy-in to the $1000 level?

Increasing starting chip stacks has been done recently. I believe they doubled the starting stack and starting blind level, but not all the blind levels were doubled.

Short-term luck will never be eliminated from a single tournament, no matter how long the levels are, or how big the starting stacks are. If this event is to determine who the "World Champion of Poker" is, then it just has to be accepted. Do we not accept the Super Bowl as the NFL "World Champion" each year? Do you really want to argue that short-term luck didn't play a large part to the Giants beating the Patriots last year? But we still don't don't dispute that the Giants are champions.

Why have we ever called the Main Event winner the "World Champion of Poker"? I can agree that they could be called the World Champion of NLHE, but there are (and always have been) more games out there. That's similar to calling the winner of a Super Mario Bros. tournament the "World Champion of Video Gaming".

In my opinion, there best way to crown a World Champion at the WSOP is to use the Player of the Year points. That would encompass all the games, would reduce but not eliminate short term luck, and would be less disputable than using one single tournament.

Increasing the buy-in would have an effect on the player pool, but I don't think it would be as drastic as one might think. How many WSOP main event packages does PokerStars award each year? Then consider how many people vie for those packages. Sure a lot of people wouldn't buy-in at $1000, but why not add another level for $40 where 1 in 25 get a buy-in to the $1000 level?

I think raising it to $50,000 would do this, but $250,000 is a whole new ballgame. There would be no $40 buy-in tourneys with 2,000 players, where 8 players receive an entry. In a 2,000 player tourney you would need a $120 buy-in, and only ONE player would win a seat.

It's basically a matter of seats compared to money taken in by the sites. If 1,000 players win their way in to a $10,000 event, then only 40 people would get into a $250,000 event. So, even if 4000 players came from online sats last year, than that would only be 160 players.

t could also have the effect of having some very good players who could possibly be the best in the world unable to play because they cannot afford the huge buyin (TA?).

Of course some people would be excluded, but some are excluded now, and some will be excluded no matter the buy-in. My feeling is, if you can't afford it than you don't belong in the tournament.

Short-term luck will never be eliminated from a single tournament, no matter how long the levels are, or how big the starting stacks are. If this event is to determine who the "World Champion of Poker" is, then it just has to be accepted. Do we not accept the Super Bowl as the NFL "World Champion" each year? Do you really want to argue that short-term luck didn't play a large part to the Giants beating the Patriots last year? But we still don't don't dispute that the Giants are champions.

Why have we ever called the Main Event winner the "World Champion of Poker"? I can agree that they could be called the World Champion of NLHE, but there are (and always have been) more games out there. That's similar to calling the winner of a Super Mario Bros. tournament the "World Champion of Video Gaming".

Very true, but if 200 of the best players come together for a tourney, the winner will have bragging rights until the next year. There's no way to definitively crown the BEST player, it's simply the bragging rights.

100k, still baller, but not just like 3 players...

If you made it $250k it'd just be Ivey and durrrr playing HU.

Originally Posted by MJPerry

If you made it $250k it'd just be Ivey and durrrr playing HU.

Nah. You could make it $1m and Hellmuth would still enter.

Back when the WSOP first started this is basically what it was like. Very few entered the tourney because of the extravagant (at the time) buyin. Everyone who did buyin was a well known poker player.

No one should be called the best person in the World for winning one tournemant, no matter what that tourney is. I like the idea of one big tourney for everyone (who can come up with a measly $10k); the pro's have many other venues to compete just amoung themselves and other high-rollers.

And the price has not stayed the same, it has come down significantly since 1972 considering inflation. In the US, and depending on what you use to measure the inflation, $10k in 1972 is worth about $50k now (up to $111,500 if you use ralative share of the GDP, but this doesnt apply here IMO). Since the Horse is $50k, this is covered.