10 Jan 12

Do We Need Super High Roller Events?

Following Viktor Blom's success in the $100,000 event at the PCA, Barry Carter discusses the recent development of six-figure buy-in tournaments.

Blom takes down a $100k buy-in event

The PCA has just concluded the $100,000 super high roller event, with Viktor Blom taking it down. Later on this month the Aussie Millions will feature both a $100,000 and $250,000 buy-in event.

Also scheduled this year is the $1 million buy-in event at the WSOP, and the WPT will have a $100,000 event. No doubt between now and 2013, we will see even more of them crop up.

I must say that when Black Friday happened, I really thought one of the first things to go would be these six-figure buy-in events. Of course the Onyx Cup never showed the light of day because it was affiliated with Full Tilt, but beyond that it seems that super high rollers are here to stay.

Are super high roller events a publicity stunt? Are they a much-needed spectacle the fans are crying out for? Do the high stakes community actually want or need them?

Poker economics

The biggest reason I am surprised that super high roller events are becoming more prevalent is simply because this is a bad time for the poker economy. Black Friday not only meant that a lot of USA pros cannot earn their bread and butter online, but also has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars locked up on Full Tilt Poker.

When you factor in a global recession and the fact that several of the usual candidates to play in a super high roller are keeping a low profile at the moment (ie. FTP shareholders) - I am just a little shocked that there are enough players who can justify these events, or at least there is enough money in the poker economy.

Scared of heights?

The modern poker player has a solid understanding of variance and bankroll management. Yet most of these events must be outside of the bankroll of all but a few players (Who are usually cash game players anyway), I just cannot understand why anyone (other than degenerates) would want to subject themselves to such massive swings.

The field sizes are small, rarely do these events get more than about 40 players, so in that regard the variance is not as high as a 600 runner multi-table tournament. But the level of competition is a lot tougher, and there are only a few of these events a year, so you will never really get to the 'long term' in super high rollers.

You'll never get proper satellites into these events, because after all the entry fee itself is equivalent to a life changing score for 99.99% of the people who cannot afford to buy-in directly, most of whom would surely prefer to take it as cash if they did win. Players may, of course, sell their action in these events to reduce their variance, but it is not a great proposition for a backer because the field size would make the ROI much smaller than normal multi-table tournaments.

Made for TV final tables?

Sam Trickett won seven-figures twice in super high roller events last year

From a tournament organisers point of view, a super high roller makes more sense. You almost guarantee a marketable final table which you can broadcast, because the field is inevitably going to be made up of sponsored and/or high profile players.

The prize pools invariably end up the same as the standard main event, but you eliminate the likelihood of a final table of unknown players.

I for one am a big fan of anything that gets recreational players excited about poker, even if that means somewhat misrepresenting some of these 'TV Pros' as being more successful in recent years than perhaps they are. Super high rollers in this sense are a pretty decent 'quick win' for a TV poker show.

However, I also think that one of the primary appeals of poker is the Moneymaker Effect. The fact that a regular Joe can take a shot, beat the best, and become a millionaire overnight.

Super high rollers effectively prevent this from happening, and turn a potential Cinderella story into just a spectacle. A great spectacle, just like my favourite poker show of all time, High Stakes Poker, but we have to be very careful to make these exceptions and not the rule.

Messing up the all-time money rankings

The all-time money rankings have always been a poor barometer for who is the best in the world, because they only include the events where a player has cashed, and not all the events where they didn't. It is completely unrepresentative of the actual profit made by that player, and in many cases the guys who look like big winners are probably massive long term losers.

One of the positives of the super high roller events is that they have completely messed up the all-time money rankings, so much so that the players in contention for them seem not to care about them as much as before. Of course the rankings are still a good guideline as to the quality of a player, but thankfully they are no longer being taken as the be-all and end-all.

Should we change the main event buy-ins?

Seidel is king of the super high rollers

One question that I have been mulling over lately is whether the $10,000/€5,000 main event buy-ins of the EPT/WSOP/WPT should be increased?

We now not only have high roller events (€10-€15k, $15-$25k), but super high roller events (six figure +), the former of which actually often get a few hundred runners.

Does this mean that, perhaps, main event buy-ins should be increased a little? After all, the WSOP main event has been a $10,000 buy-in since the 1970s.

For me, the answer is still no, for the same reason I cite about TV final tables. The main appeal of poker is that the amateur can compete in an even field with the professionals.

$10k is still a huge sum of money, and with the field sizes we have seen of late, and the prize pools that are created, $10k still seems the perfect level of buy-in to attract a good cross-section of amateurs and pros.

Super high rollers might be a great way of creating a marketable TV show, but long term the $10k events are the ultimate sweet spot for all concerned. They too boast the seven figure first prizes a lot of the time, usually feature a high standard of play and at least a couple of known players at most final tables.

But they also don't appear so extortionate that the average player can't aspire to playing in them, and perhaps most importantly, they allow a poker room to create an affordable and profitable satellite schedule for them. 

The poker elite

So far I really have mainly focussed on what the average poker player thinks about, but of course these are events for the poker elite. Ultimately if there are enough players prepared to put up the buy-in, then fundamentally that means there is a need for super high roller events.

Whether that is because $10k is too small for some players, because they are complete degenerates, they genuinely feel they have an edge in these elite fields, or they simply do not want to be seen not playing in them; super high rollers fill a gap in the market.

I like them, they are certainly fun to rail and write about, and I think they are here to stay if we all don't take them too seriously. As long as online poker rooms and TV producers don't alienate the 99.99% of us that don't play in them by treating them like they are the only tournaments that matter (Like FTP almost certainly were going to do with the ONYX Cup), then super high rollers should always have a place in poker.

by Barry Carter