Is bigger really better?

News / Editor / 09 June 2008 / Leave a comment

A massive pool of entrants may make for spectacular television coverage, but is it the best way of determining a world champion, asks Rob Eddy?

Two years ago, a staggering 8,773 players made up the field for the World Series of Poker Main Event - a rise of over 3,000 on the previous year - and it was Jamie Gold who outlasted them all to take home a mammoth $12 million, and of course a gold bracelet.

There was a fall in the number of entrants in 2007, although a still hefty 6,358, took to the tables.

All this is a far cry from the very first WSOP in 1974 when Benny Binion invited the seven best poker players of the era to his casino to determine the world champ, through open competition.

Johnny Moss won that inaugural competition, before claiming victory in three of the first five WSOP Main Events and eventually went on to amass a total of eight WSOP bracelets.

Many would argue it is 'The Grand Old Man of Poker', who was largely responsible for bringing the game to the attention of the public. Moss sat down with Nick 'The Greek' Dandalos in 1949 to contest a heads-up battle that lasted five months, and which more than likely sowed the seeds for the WSOP today.

The question is, however, will we ever see again the nine best players in the world lining up on the final table? There are former WSOP champions still playing today but are they all ever likely to progress to the final table, now that the field is so huge.

Could you imagine a better scenario than taking down the final pot against Doyle Brunson (who incidentally, played in that first game way back in 1970) to lift your first bracelet?

That looks a far cry from happening given the number of people now entering, although it would be fantastic to see more of the likes of Texas Dolly, Johnny Chan and Phil Hellmuth competing in November, and as with most things it is the big names that make the game and provide the most entertaining TV!