Over the past few days, the attention of the poker community has been on several facets of the tournament poker world. While the 100th European Poker Tour event started in Barcelona, Spain (and has drawn some attention), two other controversies have erupted that have split the poker world on both sides of the equation.
Prior to the start of the EPT Barcelona Main Event, the Super High Roller event was conducted at the Casino Barcelona. Rather than concentrating on the outstanding lineup of players who reached the final table of the €50,000 event (which included Scott Seiver, Sam Trickett, Dan Shak and Vladimir Troyanovsky), more attention was paid to the two men who would determine the winner, eventual champion Olivier Busquet and “Big One for One Drop” winner and runner-up in this tournament Dan Colman, not for their play but for their clothes.
Through the play of the final table, the two men wore T-shirts that portrayed a political statement, something that normally isn’t seen at the final table. Busquet (normally an impeccable dresser for final table play) sported a shirt that said “Save Gaza” on it, while Colman opted to wear a shirt with a similar sentiment in “Free Palestine.” The seemingly political statements by both men brought an uproar from those on differing sides of the discussion.
Cardplayer Lifestyle writer/founder Robbie Strazynski was the catalyst for the discussion. In an article he penned entitled, “There’s No Room for Politics in Poker,” Strazynski maintained that “politics should never be discussed at the poker table.” “Busquet and Colman are obviously highly intelligent and knew precisely what they were doing by donning those shirts, so they can’t plead ignorance,” Strazynski wrote. “It is telling that they only wore those shirts on the final day of competition, at the televised final table.”
After a tremendous outcry both condemning and supporting the attire of Busquet and Colman (since then, the owners of the EPT, PokerStars, has stated there will be rules on final table attire that prohibits political statements), WSOP Media Director Nolan Dalla sounded off, not necessarily on the other side but presenting a different look. In his opinion piece on his personal blog entitled, “Political Censorship Has No Place in Poker,” Dalla disagreed with PokerStars’ decision (and, to a certain level, Strazynski’s belief), writing, “PokerStars’ ruling…is perhaps well-intended. But it is also terribly misguided and very likely to be fraught with future complications. In fact, it is a terrible decision which merits the strongest possible protest.”
For both men, their beliefs are strong. Strazynski is in the highly precarious situation of living in Ginot Shomron, where the recent strife between Hamas from the Gaza Strip and Israel has resulted in rockets flying through the air on both sides that Strazynski is in the middle of. Dalla has always had a contention that he prefers to see “who the real idiots (Nolan’s vernacular can sometimes be a big stronger) are out in the open,” either through their actions, speech or attire. There is one way to handle this: through the adoption by all tours of a basic dress code.
As noted earlier, Busquet is normally nattily dressed for such final tables. Tony Dunst, the World Poker Tour “Raw Deal” announcer and champion, does likewise. But for every Busquet or Dunst that steps to a final table felt, there are plenty of players who look as if they rolled out of bed for the activity. Simply putting some rules on attire – collared shirt, shoes, etc. (and perhaps a once-over for any potentially explosive messages, political or otherwise) – would have allowed the situation at the Super High Roller to be avoided.
The second controversy has erupted over this weekend and could potentially have an impact on one of the more prestigious events on the WPT. The Legends of Poker, conducted at the Bicycle Casino in Los Angeles, will once again feature their Main Event as the initial stop of Season XIII for the WPT (one of the longest running venues on the circuit). What is different is, this year, a revamped format has some players stating they won’t play in the tournament.
Through what is called a “Quantum reload” format, the WPT Legends of Poker will feature three starting days. If a player is knocked out on Day 1A or wants to try to improve their stack, they can come back for Day 1B and/or Day 1C. All of those buy-ins are $3500 each and it isn’t a format that hasn’t been done before (the Seminole Hard Rock Poker Showdown achieved its $10 million guarantee last year through such a format). The final caveat, however, is what seems to have drawn the ire of the poker community. If a player isn’t pleased with, or is knocked out of, all three Day 1 performances, then the player has the option of buying in for an average stack at the start of Day 2 for $10,000.
Poker professional Allen Kessler, long noted for his persnickety attitude regarding tournament structures and conduct, is one player who has been particularly vocal on the subject (as we’ve reported here earlier this week). “I’ve played the Legends of Poker Main Event nearly every year since its inception…this year, I will boycott the series because of their “quantum reload” concept.” Although many have voiced approval of Kessler’s stance, there have been equal numbers that disagree with the longtime pro.
This subject of multiple re-entries into tournaments has been long brewing in the poker community and, as noted by Kessler on his Facebook page, is problematic in that it doesn’t encourage the amateurs to play in an event. Kessler uses an example (and we’ll use it here too) that said amateur, after eliminating a big-name pro from one of the Day 1 starts, now has to potentially face the same pro who may start Day 2 with a larger stack, even though the amateur completed the slog through the Day 1 minefield and all the pro did was whip out his wallet.
Normally Kessler is chided for his attitudes on tournament structures and procedures, but he’s dead right on this one. Why would an amateur peel off $3500 for his only shot in a tournament when Joey Bigstacks, the poker champion, can fire off over $20,000 ($20,500, to be exact) and be in a better position than him? The casinos who have devised these new tournament buy-in scenarios might like it on their bottom line (and, it has to be admitted, this might work for smaller buy-in tournaments) but, in the end, it only enhances the divide between the deep-pocketed pros and the amateurs and newcomers that the sport of poker needs to continue to develop.
Let’s put a final note on this subject: when the online poker rooms (such as ClubWPT and those that send players into WPT, EPT and WSOP fields through online satellites) start providing as many buy ins as necessary for their player to have the most chances in a tournament (instead of just one buy-in), then the playing field will be equal. Until then, these new buy-in formats are just a ruse by the tours (and the casinos) to inflate prize pools and ensure that there is a better chance for the final table to be populated by professionals instead of unknowns.
Controversy is never rare in the poker world, but the two situations here may be an indicator of why poker has trouble sustaining its growth. On both situations, perhaps a moment of thought as to what is best for the game’s future – rather than the immediate satisfaction – would have resulted in different outcomes.