Soapbox is a regular series of passionate rants from poker players around the world. Have you got something you want to get off your chest? Just email us at hello@poker.org with a brief outline and you can get your very own Soapbox to rant from. You can get involved in the debate by adding your comments underneath the article.
I have seen many people discuss what a minimum cash should be. And I believe I'm actually at the other end of the debate.
The WSOP, as we know, has gone up to 2x for their minimum cash, to some fanfare. I actually do not like that for multiple reasons, the biggest of which is the stalling and slow-play issue on the bubble. This World Series was the most rampant when it came to stalling that I've ever seen, but it only makes sense because they’ve created a payout structure that incentivizes it.
Economists say that whatever behavior you incentivize, that's the behavior that you're more likely to see. So then you have this huge jump on the bubble: going from 16% of the field to 15% is worth two times a buy-in, and then virtually none for a while afterwards. When you have a short stack at the bubble, it really makes sense to try and get in the money. It always made sense, but it makes even more sense with this huge jump.
My idea (which no one wants! I haven't seen anyone in favor of this, whether professional or amateur, but I believe it would be best for ‘poker’) would be to have an extremely tiny min-cash, 20% of a buy-in or something; so for example if it's a $1,000 buy-in tournament, the minimum cash would be $200.
With a very small minimum cash it would allow a few more spots to pay, so you could start at 20% of the field, paying them $200, then at 19% they’re paid $350, 18% paid $500 and so on, something along those lines. What this would do is reduce the incentive for stalling.
This WSOP was the most rampant when it came to stalling that I've ever seen.Rake and transparency
I'd also like to address the issue of rake, and following on from LoriAnn Persinger’s recent post, the most important thing to me is full transparency.
I believe it was the Mid Stakes Poker Tour, years ago, where there were, like, three different rakes: $X + $Y, and then there was a $10 add-on, and then there was 3% withheld for staff. They don't do that anymore, and that's good, but with somewhere like the MGM National Harbor, for example, even though the schedule said $360 + $40, the $40 was an add-on and then there was an additional $45 rake when you read the description. So it turned out that $360 + $40 is really $315 + $85. Yes, it's listed; yes, it's legal, but it's not done in a transparent way.
It’s also just really high, and very tough to overcome. It means that if you have, say, an ROI of under 20%, you're losing for sure, because you’ve got to overcome the rake. That means very, very few players in any field like that are actually going to win. And we're just talking about the poker, we're not factoring in any travel expenses or anything like that. I want there to be at least some people winning in the long run in poker, both for selfish reasons and for the industry.
The most important thing is that players at least pay attention to this. Venues rely on players not paying attention to it, and in that sense I strongly agree with LoriAnn - it's important that players pay attention to the rake structure and try to support the venues that do a better job.
Reward the stops that give back to players
For example, there's one stop on the WSOP Circuit which has a higher rake percentage than others. Everyone knows I I like to support and play WSOP Circuit events, ‘chasing the rings’, but there's one stop - Choctaw - where the rake is always too high. Everyone else in the $500-600 neighborhood has X percent rake, and Choctaw is always 10 or 15% higher, meaning that if everyone else has 15%, they have 16.5% or 17%. It just doesn't make any sense, and it's something that I pay attention to. If it’s a close call, I'm going to be a little bit less likely to choose that event.
WSOP Choctaw has one of the higher rake structures on the WSOP Circuit.On the other hand there are venues which practice really good stuff, for example, Borgata. When they have had bounty tournaments in the past - I'm not 100% sure about right now, I'm hoping it continues - they did not rake the bounty element of the prize pool. So they would have a $1,000 tournament with a $1,000 bounty, and the tournament would be raked like a $1K. That's amazing. Venues that do those kinds of things should be supported.
It doesn't always need to be directly with the rake, although that's huge, but there are venues that give stuff back to players. Going back to Borgata, they have a mixed game leaderboard which is partially funded from the prize pool, but also Borgata doubles whatever funds come out of the prize pool, so that's amazing. When it comes to being a potential winner, that really helps things.
The Borgata is a venue that does a good job giving back to players.RunGood has, at each of their series stops, a $10K package added. MSPT has a partnership with the WPT where they give away things. And, of course, the WSOP Circuit every year has the million dollar freeroll, where if you win a ring or bracelet you get into a tournament which has between $1,000-$2,000 worth of value. These things are big, we should be rewarding stops that give back.
At the end of the day, it’s a good thing to be a more educated consumer. Stay educated, stay sharp and make the best decisions, whether you’re looking at the small details or the big picture.
Featured image courtesy of the WPT
