Filed under: Tip of the Week
Keeping my long ago promise, today I will comment on “Which’s” question regarding freerolls and poker politics::
Barry–
I know this may be slightly “off topic”, but was wondering if you comment on the politics we KNOW are inherent in the televised events. I also thought maybe you could get into “when is a pro trying vs. not trying” and perhaps why.
Two things come t mind. I don’t know which year it was but had read that Phil Ivey went to the NBC head up tourney, and basically played so that he was out almost immediately. They were joking that there must have been a good golf game he needed to get to. (much the same as someone not wanting to rebuy in Jennifer’s event)
Second, on “the Circuit” radio show, David Singer was commenting on how he had NOT been invited even tho he won the largest “open” head up tourney in 2006, yet Jeff Shulman had been invited. As had Elizabeth Shannon, Phil Gordon, and several others.
I see both Shulman’s at the PPT events as well as many others who I wonder why they are even there.
So, another question might be how good are freerolls where only the top 6 get paid, yet the venues are expensive to stay at and get to if you are an out-of-towner? (are the side games worth traveling for perhaps?, I had heard ever since the one table shoot outs started, the WSOP side action got much less desirable).
Ok, from the top. Pros are trying when they believe they have something to try for. Because some are playing for their image and are competitive people by nature, they try all the time. But most pros are playing for the prize, and when the prize is not there (like in most Charity tournaments and many WPT freerolls, they do not care. When the top prize is a $10,000 seat or a $25,000 WPT Championship seat, pros who normally play for millions simply do not care. This is especially true if a big money game in the offing, as it generally is if the event is happening in Las Vegas or Los Angeles.
The other factor is TV. Most pros try harder if they are on TV, but some still do not care if the prize is small. And some like to BE on TV, but not to STAY on TV, if not big prize is in the offing.
With regard to invitationals, it is about ratings. Jose Rosencrantz won a WPT title in year one, but is middle aged and very boring. So he gets invited nowhere. Ron Rose won the WPT championship (which the WPT would like you think is like the WSOP World Championship but with a bigger buy-in), but he is also middle-aged and boring, so no invites for him either.
TV is looking for demographics, which means they want 18-45 males to watch in droves. And what do they want? Young dynamic players, exciting personalities, some girls. Phil Gordon is wealthy, a decent player, but has been on TV as a host and know all the celebrities. He also has a personality that matches his large in-person persona.
Let’s look at Humberto Brenes. I played with him over the years, and he is a nice man and a very good player. He has totally manufactured a personality with dances, clown hats, and shark toys (does he playas well as Jose? Hard to tell. My vote is yes, but it’s close). It is stupid and annoying, but it something for viewers to watch. And porker is boring as hell without something to watch. So Hellmuth’s antics (not really manufactured), Daniel’s wonderful personality and babbling (totally natural), Shannon’s bubbly personality, make for good TV. (Why does local news rush to fires? Everyone has already seen fire. But it is something to look at in a medium that craves visual images). So despite the announcers, these are not the top 64 players in the world (though they may well have the top ten). They have recognizable people, exciting people, famous people, attractive women, and well-connected people as well as some who are indisputable poker greats.
About the moot PPT, the players were largely chosen by results in WPT events, and to some extent by participation (if you played every WPT event, like Chris Bigler did, you were automatically qualified). Jeff Shulman may have, but he also is CEO of one of the most important media outlets for poker. And his win total is equivalent to David Singer’s, and many others.
So invitationals are a combination of good TV, good poker, and good ratings, with a smattering of good coverage. In TV, youth, excitement, and women dominate every show. And poker, to them, is just another show.
