Wednesday, May 14, 2008

The Revolution Will Be Delayed Until Fall

The final table of the World Series of Poker Main Event will be delayed for several months, so that it can be shown nearly live on ESPN.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is it good for poker but bad for the fans? Is it good for Harrah's but bad for the players?

The answer is; I don't know. Nobody knows. It might be great! It might suck!

But someone might cheat! You know how long it takes to make a deal to cheat? I'm pretty sure it doesn't take months. If people want to cheat, you aren't going to stop them. Everyone is likely to get at least a million dollars. If they want to risk a sure million for a chance to win a few more by cheating, they're probably not bright enough to get away with cheating.

I do know the steam was always taken out of the WSOP for me because I knew the winners of all the events months before they were televised. Trying to avoid it was impossible given my reading habits. If the change helps me enjoy the ESPN broadcast a little more, I'm likely to consider this a good change.

I love the WSOP, and I believe it's more than just another big poker tournament. But it's not much more. It certainly has room for improvements. I don't blame anyone at all for experimenting with it. Sometimes that's how you discover improvements. There will be unintended side effects. Sometimes those are the best things.

I think a lot of people had a knee-jerk reaction that told them "if I have to wait longer, it's BAD!" But sometimes waiting can be tolerable, sometimes delaying gratification can even be pleasurable. Some people think a big build up makes the event even better.

If not, fuck em. We'll watch the US Poker Championship.

1 comment:

Hammer Player a.k.a Hoyazo said...

I just can't shake this feeling that winning a poker tournament is supposed to happen in one fell swoop, one big session, rather than taking 3 months off and coming back to finish it up later.

Somehow this whole delay thing just seems wrong to me. I don't feel real strongly about it either way, but I just can't get around the fact that Harrah's seems to be changing the essential nature of what winning a poker tournament has always been about in the history of time until now, and not in a good or natural-feeling way.