WSOP - If You Had a Choice?

[Valiant23]

I was thinking about PLers superb efforts in winning through to the WSoP, and how fantastic it will be for them to achieve a dream that most poker players aspire to, and I wondered if you won a package (lets say $13,000 value) to the main event, is there an argument for not buying in to the main event and playing in three or four of the side events.


I just think that as good as it may be to say you've sat down in the WSoP Main Event, the fact is that it could well end at any time and then that would be it until the next time, but if you used the $10k to buy in to several events you could sit down three or four times, playing different types of poker and get more of a poker education than 'just' playing in the one event.

I'm not sticking my nose up at the main event or anyone who has qualified. If I had the chance like any of you playing in this years M.E. then I'd grasp it with both hands but Philossifys pragmatic approach to his chances (in only booking a hotel room for one week) got me thinking.

[ColU_FC]

I'd cash the $13,000 in, put £6,500 in a savings account, use the change for a few beers and then use the money in the savings account for the buyin to the PLWSOP for the next 130 years.

[morlspin]

ok ill answer him then i suppose

Right......my view on this is that I see the point made above, playing in 4 events maximises your chances of a) a cash, b) getting experience , c) making you a better player however the lure of being able to say that you have played in the big one, the wsop main event, is simply far to strong for me.

Imagine being able to say you cashed in the WSOP Main Event, or better still, going onto the final table and knowing you can leave your 9-5 job behind and give the people you love a better life because of it, to do that in the side events, your basically gonna have to win!

[teaulc]

hmmmm tough one,depends if you are gonna split up the 3 or 4 tourneys over a couple of weeks,certainly from my experience last year with having 3 buy-ins all after each other come the 3rd one (the $3000 buy-in) i wasnt in the right frame of mind for it certainly after getting donked in the $1500 buy-in and then playing badly? the next day in the $2000 buy-in (or was it the other way round?),i would i think prefer to have a go at the Main Event but i am hankering after playing the Horse event next year

[slapdash]

Rational Slapdash:

I'd find it very hard to justify playing in the main event. I'd get far more experience playing in several smaller events, and would probably enjoy it more in total. In fact, if I could just take the money and not play at all, that would certainly be the rational choice. Sure, I'm sure I'd really enjoy the experience, but with £6000 I could pay for lots of other things I'd really enjoy. At present I have rather little live poker experience, and I know it would be more sensible to spend the money on some small live events in the UK, even if I didn't spend it on something outside poker.

Irrational Slapdash:

If I won a Main Event package, I'd be absolutely torn if I had to decide. I don't think it's because of the dream of winning a fortune: I know how unlikely that is (I've never been tempted to buy a lottery ticket). I know that this is completely irrational, but in a way I'd prefer to win a package where I didn't have the choice: play or get nothing. At least that way I'd be saved the decision.




I'm playing in a ME qualifier on Pokerstars tomorrow. In the very unlikely event that I qualify, I think I could take $12,500 cash. I've already convinced myself that I'd go to play, on the grounds that Pokerstars pay you extra if you play: if I've read the terms correctly, they pay for a hotel on top of the $12,500 and pay a bonus if you're at a TV table wearing Pokerstars regalia. But the rational half of my brain says that even that is silly. Frankly, I just don't want to consider it too closely!

I'm not wealthy by any means, but I'm not hard up. $12,500 would be very nice, obviously, but it wouldn't be a life-changing amount of money for me. If it meant that I wouldn't have to worry how to pay the rent for the next few years, I think I'd find it very hard to justify going to the WSOP.

[AJ]

Pretty much in agreement with everyone else.

Playing three or four smaller events is the choice with the greater EV. If you're going to be a regular at the WSOP then it's correct.

however if you think this may be a one off, then embrace the dream. The ME is the apex of your sport. Live the dream.

If i won a ME package, I'd play it with zero hesitation, $12,000 is going to do nothing for my life in the long term. You never you when the next one is comming along, life is too short for regrets. Ride the wave and have a story for the grand kids, even if it's going out first hand.

[slapdash]

Originally Posted by AJ

Playing three or four smaller events is the choice with the greater EV.

Actually, I'm not sure that's true. There'll be a lot more players in the main event who've got there by getting lucky in online qualifiers who are playing way above their level. I suspect the main event has higher (but for me, at least, still negative) EV.

But of course the variance in the main event is far higher.

[glceud]

I think any one who has ever played poker must agree that the main event is something that has to be done.
However if you have done it, I am sure you can think of a million better things to do with $10,000, none of them involving poker.

Its a bit like an itch that needs scratching

[glceud]

Oh if I had to play poker with it I'd play 1000 $1 sit and goes for the +ev

[slapdash]

Originally Posted by glceud

Oh if I had to play poker with it I'd play 1000 $1 sit and goes for the +ev

What would you do with the other $8900?

[glceud]

Hire a maths tutor.

[voiceofjoe]

I know if I won one of the Laddies packages in the Freeroll this year then I'll take the $7k in Cash.

[happyhornet]

Like Martyn, I would take the cash rather than the ME package

The credit crunch has hit Derbyshire!!

[ubermonkey1]

easy choice for me ,i would play the main event without hesitation

as aj said its the pinnacle of poker and to be involved in that would itself be amazing.as most have said the $12,000 would be very nice, but its not gonna be life altering.

full tilt have offered $10million if the winner is sponsered by them ,no doubt the other big sites would offer a similar amount as a sign on
with the added media hype around the delayed FT, i would guess that all the players that get that far will pick up very nice deals if they aren't already sponsered.
with all this plus the chance for millions in prize money this could be seriously life changing ,so i'd go for it.

in fact if i somehow manage to luckbox my way to a good cash in the $1500 i might well buy myself in.

[Samba_SamPa]

I'd play 2 or 3 of the $1.5k nlhe events, have a few weeks in Vegas with family, see a few shows, visit the Grand Canyon etc etc.

I can feel the improvement in my game since joining PL and I think taking in a few games would be a better experience for me at this stage than the Main Event, despite the far off lure of big riches.

2011 is my aim to win a Main Event package, having played at least one side event in 2009/2010.

[JulioArca]

No contest - the Main Event every time.
$10k wouldn't change my life but to go deep in the ME might. All you need is a bit of luck
A lot of the qualifiers hang on like grim death for the bubble so they can get their buyin back. If you spot them exploit them.
Who cares if you go out first hand - (first tournament I played in Vegas - QQ v KK and I rashly got the money in preflop) - Live the dream.............

[slapdash]

I'm not trying to persuade anybody that they shouldn't play in the ME, but I can't help feeling that many of us (and I include myself) are being rather irrational about this.

Several people have justifed the fact that they'd play by saying that $10k would not be a life-changing amount of money to win. True, but I'm sure that for at least a few of us it wouldn't be a life-changing amount of money to lose, either. So why aren't we buying in to the ME?

[slick mick]

Since it's become a lottery over the last few years I have absolutely no interest in playing the ME. Also the bankroll maths just doesn't make sense. I'd much rather take the money and use it to improve my game at lower levels AND make more money.

The whole mythos of the main event eludes me, it certainly doesn't make the winner something special in poker anymore, just a luckbox. Maybe at the level it was five years ago I might be interested.

[GotaFancy?]

Originally Posted by slick mick

it certainly doesn't make the winner something special in poker anymore, just a luckbox.

It also makes them extremely rich and famous!! (Though Jerry Yang seems to be a bit of an exception - however we all know who he is!!)

[GotaFancy?]

And if it were restricted to established pros (like in the pre-moneymaker era) - none of us would have a shot at playing it......