Talk:Poker tournament

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Poker (assessed as Mid-importance). WikiProject Gambling To-do: edit history watch purge Current collaborations: Improve an article to FA Improve an article to A Help with the Gambling articles needing attention. Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner. The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated. Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Someone should put up the distribution for T10, T100, T1000, and T10000 tournaments. Such as the cost of each blind (small, big), ante, etc. How many chips a person should have, with there being more of the cheaper chips and less of the larger chips, etc. 70.111.224.85 17:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, distribution and blind structures are not universal. There are some tournaments that start at t400, with 5-10 blinds, but by the end of the first hour are already up to 100-200, or 25-50 to 300-600; some tournaments that start with t10k start at 5-10, while others start at 25-25 or 25-50. In addition, there are factors (like costs of chips) that alter distribution. For example, on can start a t2k event with 8x25, 8x100, 2x500 OR 4x25, 4x100, 1x500, 1x1000 OR 10x5, 18x25, 15x100 OR.. (You get the idea.) D.valued 08:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know about bracelets. Can someone explain how many there are and what you win them for? Thx 216.0.105.50 01:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally you win a bracelet for finishing 1st in a tournament that awards a bracelet to the winner. For example, all events in the World Series of Poker and World Championship of Online Poker award a bracelet to the winner. Not all tournaments award bracelets; those that do are usually the major, high profile ones. BTW runners up don't win bracelets, so just one per tournament. Dave6 09:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious tonight as to what the largest poker tournaments (in terms of prize pool), and I couldn't find this information anywhere on Wikipedia or anywhere else online, so I complied a list of the top 30 myself. I don't know how to make this information into a useful page on the site, so I'll just post it here and hope someone can find a way to use it. I got most of the information from the Hendon Mob database, and some of it from Cardplayer. The WCOOP numbers came from PokerStars' website. I'm fairly certain that I did not miss any tournaments that would qualify for the list, but one or two might have slipped my mind. All events are no limit holdem except for the 2005 WPT PPM (limit holdem) and the 3 WSOP $50,000 buyin HORSE events.

YEAR | EVENT | PRIZE POOL | WINNER

2006 WSOP ME $82,512,162 JAMIE GOLD
2008 WSOP ME $64,333,600 PETER EASTGATE
2007 WSOP ME $59,784,954 JERRY YANG
2005 WSOP ME $52,818,610 JOE HACHEM
2004 WSOP ME $24,224,400 GREG RAYMER
2007 WPT CH $15,495,750 CARLOS MORTENSEN
2006 WPT CH $14,671,250 JOE BARTHOLDI JR
2008 EPT GF $13,323,417 GLEN CHORNY
2008 WPT CH $13,216,250 DAVID CHIU
2009 EPT PCA $12,674,000 UNKNOWN UNTIL TONIGHT
2008 WCOOP $10,925,000 CARTER KING
2007 WPT FD $9,661,200 EUGENE KATCHALOV
2007 EPT GF $8,851,130 GAVIN GRIFFIN
2008 EPT PCA $8,562,976 BERTRAND GROSPELLIER
2006 WPT FD $8,482,650 JOE HACHEM
2004 WPT CH $8,342,000 MARTIN DE KNIJFF
2005 WPT FD $8,075,250 REHNE PEDERSEN
2005 WPT WPF $7,855,000 NICK SCHULMAN
2003 WSOP ME $7,802,700 CHRIS MONEYMAKER
2007 WPT LAPC $7,593,600 ERIC HERSCHLER
2007 WCOOP $7,495,000 KYLE SCHROEDER
2005 WPT PPM $7,430,000 MIKE GRACZ
2007 WSOP E $7,404,476 ANNETTE OBRESTAD
2008 WPT FD $7,231,350 DAVID "CHINO" RHEEM
2008 WSOP 50K $7,104,000 SCOTTY NGUYEN
2007 WSOP 50K $7,104,000 KASEEM "FREDDY" DEEB
2007 WPT PCA $7,063,842 RYAN DAUT
2008 EPT BAR $7,063,791 SEBASTIAN RUTHENBERG
2006 WSOP 50K $6,864,000 CHIP REESE
2008 AUSSIE $6,819,940 ALEXANDER KOSTRITSYN
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.131.78 (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's here now List_of_largest_poker_tournaments_in_history_(by_prize_pool) and should be linked somewhere in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.63.191 (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry completely lacks independent sources. While it is a legitimate entry, third party sources need to be added.HeartSWild (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Added an "Unreferenced" template for the time being, I might try to do something more at some point, too. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few online formats that are not included in this article. I play on Full Tilt Poker, and they have two versions I know off the top of my head that are not in the article. One is a cashout tournament, a multi-table tournament where half of the buy in goes towards a prize pool, and the other half goes towards the value of the chips in a "cashout" pool. In the middle of the tournament, any player can choose to "cashout" a certain amount of chips, receiving a payout based on the number of chips. Once the final table is determined, the remaining money from the cashout pool is distributed to the remaining players based on their chip stacks. The main prize pool distributes prize money based on where someone finishes. If a player cashes out all of his/her chips, they are then eliminated and assigned a place based on how many people are left. Another type of tournament is a matrix tournament. For instance, in a 9 player matrix tournament, the same 9 players play four simultaneous single table matches against one another. 20% of each players buy in goes towards each table, and the final 20% goes to an overall pool. Points are awarded based on place and knockouts. The highest 3 point totals split the overall pool, and the top 3 at each table split each table's pool. They are quite exciting in the online world of poker. If you manage to win all 4 tournaments, you take the entire pool. Not all of this detail is needed, but these are two types of tournaments which I think deserve some sort of mention. AlanDaTalon6789 (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made what I deemed to be a non-contraversial edit to the see also. And was looking for further input as to relevance.

The page as it currently stands has a long section about major tournaments in poker.

While I'm not trying to claim the

The latest venture will be happening later this year in Prague as part of their Mind Sports Olympiad [1]. With the way that the article currently stands I feel that this is related information. Any further views?Tetron76 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of entities organizing poker tournaments who are more worthy of a "see also". We can't list every single one, so obviously there is no reason to mention a very minor entity. Additionally, a "see also" primarily exists to send readers to a Wiki article with more/related information on the topic. The IFP article itself has basically nothing very useful to add on the subject of poker tournaments. There are only two sentences, and those sentences relate to relatively unnotable events. 2005 (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to realise that this page is a redirect of

Major Poker Tournaments

It is wrong to view the IFP as a "very minor entity" it is basically the poker lobby much bigger than say PPA

You have misconstrued their agenda - they are trying to change the legal status of poker without changing the law. There is a double lobbying. IFP are lobbying IMSA who organise the World Mind Sports Games for acceptance as a mind sport while IMSA are lobbying the IOC.

For this reason they need to meet the IOC regulations for the inclusion of sport, which is why their events are notable because for this to happen a "sport" has to organise regular world championships.

This lead to two invitation only poker events: a duplicate poker nations cup and the IFP world championships of poker Now while the prize fund was small $0.5million, it was an invitational event that was not televised.

It is very significant and the reason for the Nov 2011 date was because they wanted to be 2012 in UK but IOC forbade it. Now it looks like the other event in Prague will happen as a response to a highly disorganised IMSA. But they only seem smallbecause most of their 500 million registered members are in china. (Yet confirmed as IFP).

Since the poker tournament page is currently a mess and the IFP related pages underdeveloped on wiki I will not pursue this further although, some criteria need to be stated on the talk page as to what is a majour tournament.

But I take it you realise that there is a whole paragraph on the IFP on poker#History which appears to have been sitting there since 4 November 2011 added by user Sjbartley. Google news isn't working properly for me recently. Here is some background as to the relevance of IFP of which I only have a knowledge from interest in other games:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/22/international-federation-of-poker

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/7170-international-federation-of-poker-begins-worldwide-takeover

http://www.poker.org/news/brazil-officially-recognizes-poker-as-game-of-skill-14393/

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/content/who-says-poker-game-skill-11951

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/1205/focus-poker-game-gambling-bercovici.html

It's still a very minor entity that the vast majority of poker players have never even heard of, let alone have any views of it in terms of "poker tournaments". Something doesn't become a "major poker tourament" by asserting itself as such. It has to be demonstrated. But even then, the IFP may be a notable organization, but there is nothing very notable about it tournament-wise, and regardless, it is far less notable than many tournament entities out there. 2005 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat a statement that is wrong, it is possible for something to be little known but not a minor entity. The current article is a mess and needs to be split and therefore I'm not pushing for the inclusion og the link. But IFP tournament comfortably meets wiki Notability criteria, its significance to tournaments are to do with its drive towards international poker rather than open poker tournaments and the focus on non-standard formats such as duplicate poker.

What you should do is state what your criteria are for being a major tournament in a new section on this talk page or more notable. The current tournaments from "in addition..." until the WCOOP are of less relevance than the IFP ones you are dismissing. Tetron76 (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not "wrong" to point out the obvious that the IFP and tournaments is not even remotely as notable, according to wiki standards, as many other tournaments. There is tons of media coverage of the European Poker tour. There is virtually none of the IFP. Again, it doesn't matter what they "want to do". After they do it, and the world takes notable notice, then that is different. Now, they are trivia, in terms of poker tournaments. As for an overall definition of "major" poker tournament, there isn't one so far as the Wiki is concerned, but if something isn't televised, and/or doesn't have millions in total prize pool, and/or doesn't involve thousands of players, it obviously is not a peer of the other major tournaments. 2005 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you were factually incorrect to state that the IFP is a very minor entity. I am prepared to accept that any criteria could exclude the current tournament comfortably but there are tournaments on the list at the moment with less money and a $10k buy-in as opposed to being free expenses invitational with UK being tx free too. One of the events Poker Nations Cup has been televised before. It wouldn't hurt to actually draw up some objective criteria.Tetron76 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]