Determining a world champion

I thought I'd put this up for the weekend, something to chew on as we rake in money hand over fist at the tables.

How do you think a world champion should be crowned? Do you think the current method is best? With more than 5,000 entrants this year, and surely more than that next, is this a true way to gauge the best poker player in the world for that year? It may make you the best NLHE player that month, but does it really make you the best POKER player in the world for the year? It's tradition, and do you want to screw with that? Hell yes!

What about a tournament such as the $50K H.O.R.S.E. event? This incorporates just about every game of consequence in the poker genre, and it has an expensive buy-in to keep out the fly-by-night satellite winners, etc. But, this is always LIMIT. And, I believe it gives STUD players an advantage. One of the beautiful things about NL play is the big weapon of all-in. Sure, you may say that this takes out the nuances and makes you play REAL poker, but I disagree. The mark of a true poker player is one who can deal with these types of moves and still win, all the while utilizing the all-in move for his/her own benefit. So the argument for H.O.R.S.E. is that it is a better representative of all things poker and requires the player to really understand the game as a whole. But, there is another downside: the buy-in. There are plenty of incredibly talented players in the world who don't have that kind of cash to enter a tournament. Sure, that ensures the satellite winners will be few and far between, but what about the player who can play all of the games but just can't get up the scratch to prove it? I feel a high buy-in like this makes the tournament almost fraternal in nature, as the big boys will be snickering at the railbirds because they finally have a WSOP event to themselves again. For this I think the $50K H.O.R.S.E. event would fail in this capacity.

Or, what about a points system? Like the BCS in football, certain major tournaments (i.e. WSOP events, WPT events, Euro/Aussie majors) will have point values. In the end, these points will determine the top 100 players in the world, and then they will be seated at 10 tables of 10 players each. The winner of that tournament has earned the right to be there, and rose to the occasion when it mattered most. And this tournament would be what I would call R.O.S.H. -- Razz, Omaha (HIGH ONLY), Stud (REGULAR) and No Limit Hold 'Em. This would be awesome! Imagine the players who suck at Razz pushing all-in during No Limit just to make enough chips to fade the Razz portion. And, I'm a firm believer that Hi/Lo games are for wusses and show no real poker value. Sorry, Scott and anyone else, but to get rewarded for sticking around because you were fortunate enough to get A-2 in the hole in Omaha, is a joke to me. I played it at Foxwoods and it made me ill. To be rewarded for having crap is totally against what poker is about IMHO. As for Razz, the whole concept is to make the best "worst" hand and it isn't a split game, so I don't want to hear anyone whining that it's the same thing, because it's not even close.

So there you have it, three scenarios for the World Champion. Which one are you for? You can probably guess which one I choose.

Comments

[ZowieZ]

A points system seems more accurate than what is being done now. A "World Champ" is not someone who got lucky and sucked out. A World Champion is someone who makes a lot of final tables and has a lot of good finishes. A points system should be used, IMO.

[Christopher Cosenza]

All right, that's two for the points system! We're on a roll.

[wvapoker]

Here's an idea...let the sports writers decide...OK - that's sarcastic. Really.Let's do 26 weekly events (three day max in length). Take the top 100 or 200 money winners in the field. Then put the money back to zero and have a ten rac..oops..tournament playoff. Each tournament can be a different flavor of poker. Razz, limit, stud, Omaha, triple draw, and five NLHE events. The final on can have a 25K buy-in or it could be a freeroll (TV money). Then award the top ten with cash prizes, which would be raked from the 36 tournaments and matched by the TV production company. Finally, have big awards dinner at the Waldorf in NYC. Darn it NASCAR stole my idea.

[The Cineaste]

I have invented a new game: Hi-Lo Hold Em (no qualifier). This could be played at fixed limits to determine the world champion. Best of all worlds: limit, hold em, hi-lo.

[Gabriel]

I think a points system is the way to go, a player should be rewarded with consistency. I like the $50,000 Horse event but like you said the best player in the world might be someone that can't afford to drop $50k on one event. As much as I like the WSOP playing well for a week and getting lucky to win most of your coin flips doesn't make you the best player in the world.

[Chicago Joe]

Canadian Poker Player Magazine has done a great job putting together the Canadian Poker Tour. They use money won as points. www.canadianpokerplayer.com/ I feel the top money winner from all the major tournaments is the only way to crown a champ.

[Gabriel]

The problem with that chicago joe is that whoever wins the WSOP main event would be the champion. I think it's almost impossible for anyone to earn more than the WSOP champion. Daniel Negreanu in 2005 had one of the best tournament years in history and still finished half a million behind Greg Raymer.

[Chicago Joe]

Gabriel excellent point with Danial Negreanu. Back in the 1971 when the WSOP poker started. The player who won all the money became the world champ. Thirty five years later I feel the same principal applies. Yes there are some holes in it but poker is a sport of money.