2012 WSOP: "The Big One" Getting Even Bigger

Poker News / Short-Stacked Shamus / 30 March 2012 / Leave a Comment

"The Big One for One Drop" will be the largest buy-in event in WSOP history, and likely will award the largest prize ever at the Series, too.

Should The Big One reach its 48-player cap, the top nine finishers will cash with 43% of the prize pool going to the winner. That would mean a whopping $18,346,668.96 first prize, crushing the previous WSOP all-time high of $12 million won by Jamie Gold at the 2006 WSOP Main Event.

We are less than two months away from the start of the 2012 World Series of Poker in Las Vegas. Starting May 27th a record 61 bracelet events will be contested through mid-July, plus a 62nd bracelet awarded in the WSOP National Championship culminating the 2011-2012 WSOP-Circuit series. And on July 1st -- just before the Main Event -- will come the biggest buy-in tournament in poker history, the much-heralded $1 million tourney appropriately tagged "The Big One."

First announced at the start of last summer's WSOP, The Big One for One Drop is the brainchild of Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberté. The part-time poker player approached Caesars Interactive Entertainment CEO Mitch Garber -- like Laliberté from Montreal -- regarding the possibility of staging a $1 million tournament at the WSOP in which a portion of the buy-in would go to the One Drop Foundation, a charitable organization Laliberté founded that aims to fight poverty worldwide by increasing access to safe water.

Garber and the WSOP agreed to the idea, with $111,111 of the buy-in designated to go to One Drop. By last December, 22 players had already committed to play in the event. A few months later it appears as though considerably more players will be participating in the The Big One (Event No. 55 on the 2012 WSOP schedule), thus ensuring what will likely be the biggest single first-prize in WSOP history.

WSOP Communications Director Seth Palansky appeared on the Two Plus Two Pokercast last month (the 2/14/12 episode) where among other topics he talked about The Big One. There Palansky noted that when the event was first added to the schedule, it was decided that at least 22 players would have to participate for it to become an official WSOP bracelet event. That total was decided upon as 22 was the field size for the 1976 WSOP Main Event, the first won by Doyle Brunson.

On the show, Palansky spoke of a 48-player cap being put on The Big One, and suggested that there is a great likelihood the event will in fact reach that cap. If that were to happen, the payout schedule for the tournament indicates that with 48 players the top nine finishers will make the money, with 43% of the prize pool going to the winner.

That would mean a whopping $18,346,668.96 first prize, crushing the previous WSOP all-time high of $12 million won by Jamie Gold for finishing first at the 2006 WSOP Main Event. According to the payout schedule, a minimum of 29 must play The Big One for that first prize to trip up over $12 million.

Back in December we learned that 22 players had confirmed their intention to play, a group including Laliberté, Patrik Antonius, Bobby Baldwin, Andy Beal, Johnny Chan, Jonathan Duhamel, Tom Dwan, Bertrand Grospellier, Tony Guoga, Gus Hansen, Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ruffin, and Dan Shak.

On the podcast, Palansky also tossed out a few other interesting items regarding who will be participating in The Big One. There he said we should expect to find people from the sports world, lottery winners, hedge fund managers, and some Macau businessmen among the participants. Palansky also indicated at least one woman would be playing as well.

I had a chance this week to ask Palansky a few follow-up questions regarding The Big One and expectations regarding it.

Short-Stacked Shamus: On the Two Plus Two Pokercast you mentioned that there was a good chance The Big One would reach its cap of 48 players. Is there any chance that cap might be lifted if needed?

Seth Palansky: The cap at 48 will stay in place. The only possible exception is due to a guaranteed Mega Satellite ($25,300) we're running at the Rio on June 30. We'll award one seat per 40 entries there, thus all those winners would be guaranteed seats.

SSS: What percentage of the field will be familiar to most of the poker world (e.g., well-known pros, Laliberté, Ruffin, etc.) and what % will be those largely unknown to a lot of us?

SP: I think you will recognize 60-70 percent of the names/faces, but a large percentage will be unfamiliar to most. There is a lot of interest from the business community.

SSS: There was a bit of hubbub over the last week regarding a player attempting to recruit backers to participate in the event. Any thoughts on such arrangements?

SP: Yes, I heard the most recent creative way to get into this event. It isn't the first. A gentleman in the U.K. is/was trying something similar. Our thoughts are that we applaud the creativity, however we prefer this event to be looked at through its intended charitable light and for those who can afford the buy-in themselves. There are also a host of legal and regulatory challenges in soliciting monies and we certainly don't recommend or encourage that approach, despite perhaps the good intention.

Regarding Palansky's latter point about The Big One's charity component, should 48 players participate that will mean the event will ultimately raise more than $5.33 million for the One Drop Foundation, not to mention increase the charity's profile and thus encourage more to contribute.

Of note, all donations to One Drop go to support its many projects designed to get water to those in need as well as increase awareness regarding water shortages worldwide, with all of the foundation's administrative expenses covered by Laliberté. You can find out more about One Drop at the foundation's website.

It appears even before the first hands of The Big One have been dealt that the tournament will have been a success. And once the tourney does begin on July 1 there will be a great deal of attention on the event to see who among the players walks away with the biggest-ever prize in poker. For more details on the tournament, including the structure (in which players will start with 3 million chips!), click here.

Much thanks to Seth Palansky for taking the time to answer questions about The Big One.

Join Betfair Poker Now.

The European Poker Tour Campione Main Event is heading towards a thrilling conclusion after the 99 players who returned to the Casino di Campione yesterday afternoon were whittled down to the final 24 in the competition. The man who is...

It's that time of year again - The WSOP is just around the corner and players are grinding away at the satellites to bag that all important Main Event package and a shot at poker glory. But for those who...

Week Two of the WSOP Trials proved even more popular than the first with an incredible 656 players seated for battle. Two of these players would be walking away with a $4k WSOP Vegas package and $1500 travel expenses whilst...

Amazon Sports Center

Tingle Creek Preview: Prefixing a bigger scourge than race fixing

Jamie Lynch / Jamie Lynch / 02 December 2011 / Leave a Comment

Wishfull Thinking tops the index in the Owner Overviewer

"Wishfull Thinking hasn't been let loose over two miles to make the most of his bold jumping, enthusiasm, flamboyance and high cruising speed, but he will be at Sandown, and I really like the thought of that."

Timeform Chief Correspondent, Jamie Lynch, warns of pre-conceptions over names, but says that owner themes are a different matter: or is it just Wishfull Thinking?

The problem with Betfair is that I'm no longer spending enough time in the bookies. I wandered in one dinnertime last week, into a gaggle of men (and the obligatory dog) that were unfamiliar in face but reassuringly familiar in so many other ways, each made up roughly of two-fifths hope, two-fifths denim and one-fifth what can only be described as Betting Shop Tourette's. I know whereof I speak, believe me.

I wasn't in there long when a man - let's just call him Kenny - turned around to me and said: 'Henderson had seven yesterday. I did all of them. I always do Henderson. Henderson over jumps, and Ballymacs on the dogs.' I looked upon him in the way that Adrian Chiles sometimes looks at Christine Bleakley when Daybreak tries to do politics, and I thought no more of it.

I say I thought no more of it, but I did, and the uncomfortable truth is that I'm no wiser nor better than Kenny. Despite the long-term Timeform tutelage in sophisticated and disciplined form-based punting, I'm still a sucker for a wholesale generalisations, starting with names, or the prefix to be more precise.

Exhibit A: Bollin. Not quite in the same league as Harlestone, but everybody knows that all Bollins need a very long trip and very soft ground. Only they don't, as proven over the years by, amongst others, Edward, Franny and Joanne, to my cost. I've also painfully discovered that not all Inglebys love the fibresand, not all Stoneacres are useless, not all Rightcars are useless and not all Broughtons are lined up for handicaps, while one or two Burjs have been known to fulfil their potential.

That's the Flat, though, and in fairness to the National Hunt prefixes they tend to prove rather more steadfast and reliable. Here's my little jumps ditty to remind me of what names do what:

Kautos are classy and Brooklyn equals free-goer
Lambrinis are slow yet Woodlands are slower,
Solways in Scotland and Cresswells in Wales
Bathwicks are triers but Woolfalls flash tails,
Truckers are travellers and Minellas good jumpers
See Mores in points and Nodforms in bumpers,
Back Stagecoach in small fields and Carricks when wet
And Basfords if it looks like they're having a bet.

However, there is one glaring omission, and it's perhaps the most weighty prefix around right now: Sizing.

I'm not sure what Sizing is a byword for, but in a Timeform straw poll the most common suggestion was 'old-fashioned chaser'. Personally, I can't have that term; it's pretty meaningless when you think about it, just like 'old-fashioned gamble'. There's no timescale here. Is it not just a fancy or pretentious way of saying big? If an old-fashioned chaser landed an old-fashioned gamble then we'd have to call in Ertha Kitt.

The most old fashioned of all the Sizings is coming over for the most old-fashioned race of the weekend, the Grade 1 Tingle Creek Chase at Sandown. Sizing Europe, like most of the Sizings, is trained in Ireland, but we're well aware of his old-fashioned talent over here in Britain where he's won four of his five starts, including at the last two Cheltenham Festivals.

Sizing Strike Rate would be an apt name for him, though Sizing Robust wouldn't be, as he has averaged only four races per season in his career. It's different this time around, however, and Sandown will be his third start in as many months, which makes you think a bit. Add to that a very hard race when out on his feet at the end of three miles at Down Royal four weeks ago, and it's enough to put me off him as favourite here. A fragile theory, but perhaps a fragile horse.

Tataniano's injury is a shame, but it's typical of Paul Nicholls that he has another old-fashioned gun to fire in the shape of Kauto Stone, and we know from the prefix postulater that Kauto is a maxim for classy. He duly looked classy on his first start for Nicholls at the aforementioned Down Royal meeting last month, but looking classy against a handful of second-tier Irish chasers over two-and-half miles is a world away from proving classy against this different lot at a different trip. An undeveloped theory, but perhaps an undeveloped horse.

There aren't enough Wishful(l)s around for the prefix postulater to kick in regards Wishfull Thinking, but that's okay because we do have the owner overviewer as back-up, and Diana Whateley is one of the most definitive on that particular index. Think dark and light blue colours, think Philip Hobbs, think bold-jumping, enthusiastic, flamboyant horses that are high on class and cruising speed. Like Menorah, Snap Tie and Captain Chris, Wishfull Thinking fits that bill exactly. Unlike Menorah, Snap Tie and Captain Chris, Wishfull Thinking hasn't been let loose over two miles to make the most of his bold jumping, enthusiasm, flamboyance and high cruising speed, but he will be at Sandown, and I really like the thought of that.

Wishfull Thinking was Timeform's leading novice chaser of last season, an accolade achieved over longer trips, but I've got a suspicion that he'll make a crack two-miler, and I've got a suspicion that he'll be hard to catch in the Tingle Creek, in which he'll roll along in front, jumping from fence to fence (a cliche right up there with old-fashioned chaser in my book), all the while cranking up the pressure and exposing any potential fragility in Sizing Europe and any potential immaturity in Kauto Stone.

In Sizing and Kauto, Wishfull Thinking has some big names to overcome, but names can be misleading, as I've tried to point out, and it's time for me to stop making such simplistic and misguided assumptions about horses.

By the way, Cresswell Crusader runs in the 14:40 at Chepstow. I'm off to tell Kenny.
..........
The Timeform Jury were in great form in November, with 13 individual winners at up to 10/1 and 58% profit on stakes*. Click HERE to find out more.

*At advised prices to recommended stakes.

Timeform Chief Correspondent Jamie Lynch takes a roundabout look at Betfair Chase day, or is that Betfare Chase day?...

Timeform Chief Correspondent Jamie Lynch is joined by TVG's Simon Bray to provide a perspective from each side of the Atlantic on topics about this weekend's Breeders' Cup....

Who put the old in Goldikova? Timeform's Jamie Lynch looks at the old-age issue of old age and whether or not it has caught up with Goldikova on the eve of her fourth Breeders' Cup....

Betfair website

Can We Assume No-Limit Hold'em Always "Plays Bigger" Than Limit?

Poker Strategy / Short-Stacked Shamus / 01 September 2011 / Leave a Comment

Back during the World Series of Poker I recall a certain "WSOP Hand of the Day" between Matt Matros and Jonathan Lane that came up during Event #52, the $2,500 Mixed Hold'em (Limit/No-Limit) tournament eventually won by Matros. The pair were heads-up for the bracelet, and after Lane had won a sequence of LHE hands to take the lead, Matros retook the advantage and after winning this particular NLHE hand soon cruised to victory.

I've had the chance to help cover a few of these Mixed Hold'em events at the WSOP over the years for PokerNews, including a couple of memorable ones in which Gavin Smith won his first bracelet (in the $2,500 Mixed HE event in 2010) and Erick Lindgren his first (in the $5K version of the Mixed HE in 2008).

In these tournaments, players alternate between a half-hour of fixed-limit hold'em and a half-hour of no-limit holdem. When talking about that Matros-Lane hand I mentioned how often in these events -- especially during the latter stages -- LHE "plays bigger" than NLHE, thereby resulting in larger chip swings. That observation was somewhat anecdotal; that is to say, I was thinking of what frequently had happened in the tournaments I'd seen, and not of any sort of mathematical breakdown of why that might be the case.

Obviously with these WSOP mixed HE events the schedule of blind increases directly affects how "big" LHE and NLHE play, relatively speaking. But the issue got me thinking... how do LHE and NLHE compare when we're talking about regular cash games? In other words, what are the relative "swings" players experience when playing LHE as opposed to NLHE?

On the surface, it might appear a simple question to answer. Perhaps thinking about how we can only win a few bets per hand in LHE while we can double-up or lose our entire stack in a single NLHE hand, for many of us our instinctive response would be to say no-limit clearly "plays bigger." In fact, it is a commonly-held assumption that players who wish to avoid big swings are encouraged to stick with LHE rather than try NLHE, since in the fixed-limit game they stand to win or lose much less on average.

But is that actually the case? Like I say, watching these mixed hold'em tourneys has gotten me wondering -- when it comes to comparing entire sessions or longer-term segments of play, is it possible that LHE sometimes plays as "big" or even bigger than NLHE?

In The Math of Hold'em, authors Collin Moshman and Douglas Zare devote a series of sections to "Statistics and Variance" in which they explain concepts like "standard deviation" and their application to bankroll management. There the authors note how when it comes to online poker, in limit hold'em "your standard deviation is typically about 15 big bets per 100 hands for full ring, [and] about 17 big bets per 100 hands 6-max."

Adding the disclaimer that all of these figures are obviously going to be affected by how loose or aggressive you and/or your opponents are, Moshman and Zare go on to note that when playing NLHE online "your standard deviation is typically about 85 big blinds per 100 [hands] for full ring, and about 95 big blinds per 100 for short-handed." (The authors note also how the relative deepness of the stacks are going to affect things in NLHE, too, but to keep things simple we'll set that aside.)

So let's say I'm a "typical" player and I am trying to choose whether to sit down at an LHE or NLHE table. I have $100 with which to play, and I'm going to take a seat at either a $0.50/$1 NLHE table or $2/$4 LHE table. And while I expect to win, I also don't want to lose my money too quickly, so I'm trying to pick the game that poses the least risk to my hundy.

I'm thinking here of what players often buy in for at these particular limits when playing online. I know, for example, that in Internet Texas Hold'em, Matthew Hilger (interviewed here) says with regard to LHE that "I prefer to sit down with at least forty times the big bet to minimize the chance that I might have to add chips later." Thus I wouldn't really be following Hilger's advice by sitting down with my 25 big bets here. But just eyeballing the games I think many would probably think of $0.50/$1 NLHE and $2/$4 LHE as being in the same neighborhood, stakes-wise.

Looking back at Moshman and Zare's figures, then, let's do some math. If during 100 hands of LHE I experience "standard deviation," I'd expect to win or lose as much as $60 (full ring) or $68 (6-max.). Meanwhile, if during the first 100 hands of NLHE I remained within the expected range, I'd be looking at winning or losing as much as $85 (full ring) or $95 (6-max.).

One can win or lose more, of course. As I mentioned, the authors do note that the relative looseness/tightness of a game can affect the standard deviation -- by as much as 15% in either direction in LHE games and 30% in NLHE games, they say. That means that if I happen to draw a loose LHE game, it could in fact "play bigger" than would a tight NLHE game.

All of which is to say, that while it looks like NLHE typically is going to be a game in which one experiences somewhat larger swings than in LHE, the difference isn't necessarily as enormous as one might expect. In fact, it looks here as though the chances that I'll burn through my $100 -- or, perhaps, double it -- aren't hugely different whether I play $0.50/$1 NLHE or $2/$4 LHE.

That's, assuming, of course, I'm equally proficient in both games. And that my opponents are as well. And, well, a lot of other things, too.

Even so, I think we can still take away another lesson here -- in fact, one about avoiding another assumption, namely, the one that says by sticking with LHE we'll avoid the big swings of NLHE.

Join Betfair Poker Now.

As a general rule the average poker player in today's game is much more skilled, or at least more knowledgeable, than they were as little as three years ago. There are a number of reasons for this, not limited to...

I was playing short-handed pot-limit Omaha the other day when a hand occurred that demonstrated a couple of truths frequently encountered when playing low limit PLO online. One was how a lot of players -- likely influenced by hold'em --...

One area that many poker players struggle with is playing against an aggressive opponent who has position on them. For the most part good players try to avoid these situations but sometimes they cannot be avoided and the player just...

Betfair website