Quote:
Originally Posted by 5carab
Finally listened to this and BJ's argument re: the Main Event thing is f***ing retarded. I mean, really? It's like saying that winning the French Open in tennis isn't a 'real Grand Slam' tourny because no one calls the winner the Wimbledon Champion... WTF? Of course no one says Annette won the ME because it's a DIFFERENT F***ING TOURNAMENT!!! She won, as everyone says, the WSOPE ME, just like Mizrachi won the Players' Championship and senor rando won a $1,500 no limit event.
|
So weird. I was listening to this episode at the gym, and I made this exact analogy in my head (except I thought of Australian Open instead of French Open).
Here's the way I look at the whole WSOP vs. WSOPE bracelet comparison:
1. Take all of the bracelet events at the Las Vegas WSOP and rank them 1st through 57th according to a combination of field strength, prestige and prize money. Whatever weight you give those aspects is up to you.
2. Now insert the five WSOPE bracelets into those rankings, using the same criteria.
My guess is that the WSOPE tourneys will be scattered evenly among those rankings, no matter who you are. If they are lumped near the bottom, then perhaps one could make an argument that they shouldn't have the same collective gravitas. But I would be shocked if anyone would assign them such status. As has been stated before, many of the WSOPE events seem to resemble the small-field events that run at the Rio during the spring.
No, the WSOPE Main Event bracelet doesn't stand up next to that of the WSOP Main Event. But it likely garners more weight than 80 percent of what is won in Vegas. As such, I wonder if Phil and Antonio now argue about the relative merits of their bracelets: Laak's £2,500 six-max vs. Esfandiari's $2K PLH?
I don't know, but I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.
The Poker Beat - Oct. 3
Linear Mode
