Column: Please Remove The One Drop Player Cap

Barry Carter urges the organisers of the $1,000,000 buy-in One Drop event to lift the 48-player cap, for the benefit of both poker and charity.

Guy Laliberté

I never really thought about the 48-player cap at this year's $1 million One Drop Event until now, because to be perfectly honest, I never thought it would even come close to getting there. But now not only does it look like it will get there, it looks like it has the potential to exceed 48.

Unfortunately though, we confirmed exclusively just over a week ago that the 48-player cap will not be increased.

I for one find this disappointing, and I think the poker world will too. If you are going to make a seven-figure buy-in spectacle like this, then I think you should make it as big as possible. I know that logistically it might be much harder to increase the cap in an event like this than say, a $1,500 bracelet event, but I would urge the organisers to give it a try.

Seth Palansky said of the cap:

"People have been able to register for this event since June 1, 2011 – over a year. We have been thoughtful, methodical and consistent with our rules for this event since the beginning."

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense when we talk about the market for this event - poker players. We have never been known for being organised, and Palanksy need only look at WSOP Day 1d fiasco from 2009, where hundreds of poker players tried and failed to register for the last day of the main event at the last minute, to see what I mean. Most poker players, especially the kind of pros who would play One Drop, have a tendency to leave things till the last minute.

I also have no idea what the requirements are for escrowing the funds, but if it means having to leave the full amount in advance, I cannot see many players wanting to do this particularly early when they could be reinvesting it at the tables.

This also means players enjoying a hot streak in the series this year would be excluded from the event. There will always be a few players who are doing well in the series or the cash games that might decide to take a shot when they normally wouldn't have entertained the idea, but these players will not be able to do so.

Protecting the poker economy

Phil hasn't registered yet

I heard Jack Effel say that they did not want to potentially hurt the poker economy by having too much of their money potentially being lost to people outside of the poker community.

This has happened before, in 2006 when Andy Beal won one of his heads-up battles against "The Corporation", a conglomerate of high stakes Las Vegas players. This prompted Doyle Brunson to utter the words "you can go home Andy, we're all broke."

This is indeed a danger; there are enough businessmen in this event that a good stroke of variance in their favour could remove the better part of $40 million from the poker economy. With so much poker money still locked up on Full Tilt, I can understand the sensitivity here.

But more often than not, the big prizes will be won by the professional players, so by that token, it is more likely to benefit the poker economy. Especially when just about everyone has publicly stated they will be getting backed, meaning the dividends will be spread widely among the poker world.

Add to this the fact that the payout structure is top 20%, rather than 10%, and it makes it all the more likely the poker economy benefits from this event.

While I can appreciate the argument about protecting the poker economy, surely if that is a major concern then the best solution is to delay an event like this a couple of years when there is potentially a healthier poker market?

The greatest spectacle?

A shot in the arm for TV poker?

Few events can claim to rival the main event in terms of anticipation, size, prestige, or entertainment value, but this is the one event that possibly could.

The final table is more than likely going to be a TV producer and railbirds dream, and the record breaking amounts to be won will capture the attention of an audience much bigger than the usual poker demographic.

Why on earth would ESPN and the WSOP not want to try and make this as big as it possibly could get? Why would the players, who are playing in the biggest game of their lives, not want to make the rewards all that sweeter?

I can't see how anyone - the TV guys, the organisers, the players, and the fans - can be happy knowing that this event could have been even bigger.

Poker needs a shot in the arm right now, especially televised poker in the US, and this could be it. Right now neither Phil Hellmuth or Phil Ivey are on the official entrants list, but both of them are enjoying an incredible series. But with six spots left, and at least ten other names mentioned as wanting to play, I think it would be a disaster if either of the two most iconic players in televised poker somehow were to miss out (as well as every other pro on the waiting list).

Saving the world

$111,111 for charity for every player

Then of course there is probably the most important reason to extend the cap - the fact that this event is raising money for charity. For every player that buys in, there will be $111,111 that goes to the One Drop foundation.

That is a huge sum of money, one which any charity would be over the moon to receive. Seth Palansky said in response to this, that the event "will raise the single most amount of money for a charity poker tournament in the history of poker and more than any other charity poker events held elsewhere combined for the past year."

I really do not want to criticise anyone who makes an event like this where so much money goes to a worthy cause, because after all if 48 players buy in, then that will be a staggering $5,333,328 raised for One Drop.

However, I cannot help but feel that enforcing the cap goes against the ethos of charitable work. Knowing that maybe an extra $222,222 or $333,333 could have gone to charity would leave some people feeling very deflated.

Once in a lifetime

I don't want to make this look like increasing the cap is the easiest thing in the world, because it certainly is not. Making last minute changes to any poker event requires consultation from the Nevada Gaming Commission, and a tournament of this magnitude with so much money on the line would come under much more scrutiny than any other event. But with the charity element being so significant in this event, I would like to think the NGC would get behind this.

The WSOP has done some amazing things in recent years to advance the game, and this is one such example. They also have said publicly that they listen to player feedback and will make changes to meet that demand.

I know increasing the cap in One Drop is probably nowhere near as easy as I might make it sound, but this is a one off event that could benefit the poker industry and have a huge impact on a very worthy charity.

If it is possible to increase the cap in One Drop, then they have to do it.

By Barry Carter