Daniel Negreanu and Poker's Best Interest
Daniel Negreanu in his recent blog talked a bit about things that are in the âbest interest of poker.â He goes over several things that he said are in the best interest of poker.
The first was the continued elimination of WSOP rebuy events. He says that the events skew history and give guys like him the advantage of being able to get deep in the events.
The next point was regarding the Playerâs Championship. He talked about how that H.O.R.S.E. is boring on TV and that âpeople want to watch Holdem.â
The final point goes back on his thoughts regarding sunglasses. He doesnât think they should be used and in fact they will be banned in âThe Big Gameâ on Fox.
Here are my thoughts on these points:
The WSOP had rebuy events through a good portion of its history. Up until 2003, the WSOP was mainly a pros playground. Chris Moneymakerâs win obviously changed all that. However, the fact that the WSOP is still more or less the World Championships of Poker still remains. Rebuy poker is a form of poker. If someone cannot afford to rebuy 50 times, that is their problem. Eliminating an event because the âaverage playerâ cannot afford a rebuy in my opinion is silly. We are talking about 3 to 5 events max in a year. Should the Playerâs Championship be reduced to a $1k buy-in? Why not? The average player cannot afford to buy-in for $50,000.
Speaking of the Playerâs Championship, I like the idea of going to an 8 game format. Granted, I liked it as H.O.R.S.E., but the reality is that 8 game is a truer test of poker ability. I still do not agree with the final table being NL Holdem. Of course, this is being done for âratings.â Honestly, I do get the fact that most of the public areâ¦.only interested in Holdem on television. At the same time, I find almost all Holdem on television boring outside of something like High Stakes Poker.
As far as sunglasses being banned at the poker table, I think that is just rubbish. Playing poker is about winning money. The âsocial aspectâ is fine if you are playing lower limit poker, but at higher limits, it is about the money. Granted, I am not a fan of sunglasses, but I donât think they should be banned.
When thinking about it, what do those changes really affect? Eliminating WSOP rebuy events in the grand scheme of things has not significant impact on poker in the positive. Making the final table of the Playerâs Championship NL Holdem only helps to grow that event. If you had a $50,000 Holdem event and televised it, the same goal would be accomplished. Finally, banning sunglasses from television tables I think will only marginally improve the product.
I will give Daniel credit for actually having a passion for the game beyond just making money. Many players are mainly just concerned about themselves and what they can make at the table. In reality, that is actually what poker is all about. While I may not always agree with Danielâs opinions on matters, at least he puts forth the effort to try and further the game of poker, and for that he has my respect.
Now if I can just convince him that televised Stud 8 is a GOOD thing. One can dream right?