Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that the recession will inevitably affect the game in this country. I see the way money changes hands in poker as being like a pyramid, which relies on its massive bottom tier. The game is funded by the vast majority, who are willing to spend a little spare money to enjoy their hobby. With spare money becoming tighter, the effect will be felt all the way to the top.

It’s a shame; in brighter times I think the game would still be growing sharply in England, as it gains credence amongst the public all the time. I think the two effects will balance out for GUKPT numbers to remain steady, but I’m not so pessimistic about the new talent.

How about a friendly wager? I will bet you that there are at least two winners of the GUKPT who a) are under 25 and b) are not names that either of the two of us would recognise now. Loser has to turn up to the Grand Final in a suit. What do you reckon?

To understand the poker reason, here is the kind of decision an organsier will have when putitng together a prize structure. What kind of difference would it make for the bottom 20 people in the cash to win a 11k Euro prize from their 5k buy-in, rather than an anticlimatic 6k? I would say quite a substantial one. What difference would it make for the winner to walk away with a ridiculously big 800,000 Euros for getting lucky in a game of cards, rather than a slightly more ridiculous 900,000? I would argue that there is no difference.

I think a number of players would welcome a better balance in the pay-out structure, but there is one reason why it may never happen. Headlines can only be short, and do not have time to explain balance, only to exclaim gigantic winning prizes.

The EPT structure is no more skewed than our domestic tournaments, but the obscene amounts of money mark the difference even more. You hint at something very important though, and that is that it is not just the amounts of money at stake at the EPT that take some time to fathom. Every couple of weeks in this country, a tournament takes place that offers a winning prize that the outside world would find difficult to believe. It should not take something like the EPT for the budding poker player to challenge his own thoughts on money, but a much more humble occassion. Many would, and others should, think carefully when they move up from their regular £5 game at the casino to take a stab at the £10.

I love the game of poker, but where the headline writers get excited about the amount of money going to the winner of the biggest events, I find it difficult to digest. There is just no need for anyone to win THAT much money. The idea of playing poker for a living is a dangerous thing, but is still a possibility for a small talented group. The security of the job would definitely be helped if it offered a more regular chance to turn a decent profit, rather than the unlikely dream of a goldmine.

I think we will see added numbers at the English Tours (GUKPT & GBPT if Gala continue) this year as you pointed out, however l do believe you will see less New Talent emerge and a much quicker turnover of the dabblers as the recession bites deeper into the economy.

Your last paragraph is excellent and l must embarrass myself by admitting that it took me 2years to fully understand BM and 8months after that to actually put it into practice. I daren’t think how much this has affected my game progression, both mentally and financially, but l have to get on with it.

Lots of circuit regulars will dissapear this year, Jesus, l might even be one them!

Mick

What do you mean by too big?
People outside the game of poker might argue that any win that looks like an annual salary, or even a fraction of an annual salary, is arguably too big.
Those inside the game would presumably counter this by saying that a single win has to be funded by several tournaments in which no cash is won.

If a sponsor puts up a prize for a competition, the size of the prize can be the subject of endless debate. But the size of the prize pot in poker is determined by the number of players and how big the buy-in is, so, if we assume that everyone is using sensible bankroll rules, those who enter can all “afford” to do so and the winner beats that group of peers, playing at a certain level of the game, to take the money.

But are you suggesting, maybe, that the structure of the prize distribution should be different? that fewer players get the equivalent of the “free spin”, more get a sizeable amount and those at the top don’t therefore hit the jackpot quite so spectacularly?

Is that what you mean by the skewed pay-out structure. Ideally, would you change it?

And does that hold only for EPT, or would you change the structure for domestic tournaments (to borrow a football expression) ?

I’d be interested in your comments.
Pam