News / Chris Edwards / 09 June 2008 / Leave a comment

Proving that there's one thing on everyone poker players mind in the build up to the WSOP Main Event, Chris Edwards writes about the Final Table delay and how he thinks it'll effect the game.

Around the beginning of April, the internet became cluttered with rumours of Harrah's plans for the final table of the Main Event. One of the first reports stated that the final table could be delayed for up to three months, meaning that after the 10th player was eliminated at the end of the regular Series, the remaining final table would beput on hold until sometime later in the year.

On the 1st May Harrah's Entertainment,owners of the WSOP, confirmed what they called a 'ground breaking change' in a press conference. The main event will continue until the14th July when the final 9 will have been decided. They will reconvene on the 9thNovember to play out the final table for a scheduled two days after a 16 week gap.

My initial thoughts were that this is the end of the WSOP and that it will lose what little credibility it had left. Thinking my views would be echoed by the games elite, I was quite surprised then to find a lot of the professionals actually supported the idea.

Daniel Negreanu, the 2004 WSOP player of the year and 3 time bracelet winner, had a lot to say about the matter posting manyblogs and a video on his thoughts. He brought up a lot of good points about whythe change may be a success, but also stressed why changes like this are necessary.

He states that in 2004 Harrah's 'bailed out' the WSOP. This is a reference to the fact that in 2004 Harrah's purchased Binion's Horseshoe, home of the WSOP for over 30 years. This included the rights to the WSOP brand. Because of the size of today's WSOP, Daniel believes that the event has to go corporate to help sustain it.

The change will certainly help with promotion of the event. In previous years, by the time the final table footage airs, we already know the winner and have seen the final hand a million times. This makes the first viewing of the footage almost seem like a re-run, which would not do much to help ESPN's ratings. Compare that to boxing where a fight is promoted so intensely before it happens that you can't avoid the media buzz. I saw and read so much about the recent Calzaghe fight in Vegas that I just had to watch it...and I don't even like boxing.

Tom Schneider, last years WSOP player of the year, wrote in his blog:
'Many people outside of poker will recognise all the players that make the final table...Letterman and Leno might even have the whole final table on their show. Who knows?'

So how will the change effect the players games leading up to the final table? The general thought is that it will benefit the amateur players the most. They will be able to work exclusively on their final table game, helped immensely if they secure glamorous sponsorship deals from sites that represent top professionals and offer coaching as part of their contracts. If any professionals make it to the final table then they are at a severe disadvantage as the amateurs will be able to study years of footage, while the pro will have very little to find out about his lesser known opponents.

This leads to most professionals biggest concerns in that it might ultimately change the outcome of the event, had the event concluded straight away. After all of this though I am a little surprised and a little disappointed in the new broadcast proposal. I had imagined a pay-per-view event marketed the same as any major sporting event, however the plan is to edit the final table play into a 3 hour special to be shown the next day. This seems to remove the reason to watch as part of the enjoyment is not knowing who will win and I don't want to spend all day avoiding talk of the winner on the TV/ internet/phone.

After researching the plans and reading others concerns I am now pretty undecided about the final table change. While I support the idea if it means the WSOP will live on, long enough that I get the chance to play in it, my worry is that the integrity of the game itself might be harmed. A lot of poker players are seen as celebrities now, but if the change explodes poker even further into the mainstream what might happen? Huge made for TV events crowning someone the Ultimate Universal Champion, with 5 minute blinds and propaganda videos similar to that of the WWE? While it might be hard to imagine Doyle Brunson with face-paint and a leotard on, there is always some idiot ready to do anything for fame and fortune. Is that really what we want for poker?