[Article] Poker, Pros, Problems?

[Dr. Sylvan]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7436

[Jacob Orlove]

We are the alpha and the omega.

[Matt]

Mo' money, mo' problems.

[Ric_Flair]

The fact that you used the word "sexiness" even in quotes to describe an event including professional Magic players (like Darwin Kastle) is unbelievable.

I also think that without the Pro Tour Magic will almost certainly collapse into three camps: non-competitive players, draft (money draft) players, and Vintage players.  There will be, essentially, no Type 2 or Extended.  If they do continue they will be skeletonized versions of what they are now.  That is, if the exodus occurs, which I think it just might.  Competitive, current Magic formats, however are driven largely by the promise of PT dollars.  One other possibility occurred to me--the great players will move on to play poker and the subpar players will move up to the pro tour.  I guess there is nothing to prevent this from happening, but there is a reason this second tier of guys are not on the Tour already--they do not have the time, talent, or the resources to dedicate to the game.  So maybe things will survive if there is an exodus, but the new form of the Tour will be a shadow of its current self.  Perhaps PT: Kobe was the last truly high powered PT event.  That would be a shame...or would it.  I am not sure.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I also think that without the Pro Tour Magic will almost certainly collapse into three camps: non-competitive players, draft (money draft) players, and Vintage players.  There will be, essentially, no Type 2 or Extended.

My first reaction upon reading this: "But Type 2 isn't even on the Pro Tour."

Competitive, current Magic formats, however are driven largely by the promise of PT dollars.

I challenge the quoted assertion, which I see to be the center of your argument. Most players understand after a short exposure to organized play that they are only marginally talented. I feel that there is a significant Johnny component to tournament-goers, who wish to test their mettle against a diversity of opponents, unlike more casual or beginning players who would rather play with their friends. It is not about being Spike-to-the-max. Only a true Spike would abandon the game or a format because of the difference between having a Pro Tour in Japan and having a Grand Prix in Colombus.

The Johnny and Johnny/Spike (especially the latter, which I feel encompasses the majority of the DCI player base) use tournaments as a way to field test deck ideas that they are infatuated with. Formats simply organize the process such that they can become infatuated with something different in each season. And because the masses don't expect to win regularly or globally, they don't care whether the mainstream deck ideas are being churned out at a PT or a GP, because the coverage is similar either way, and they weren't the ones flying to Amsterdam for a chance at the jackpot.

[Ric_Flair]

Maybe I am biased by playing in New England, but there seems to be a lot of people who think of themselves, rightly or wrongly, as on the bubble, and go to events with the sole hope of making the Tour.  I think that your explanation of Johnnies wanting to test their deck against other decks works, to a limited extent elsewhere, but it does not work here.  Furthermore, this idea NEVER works in Limited, which is the mainstay of PTQs now, something I detest.  If Constructed was still the center of PTQs then you may be right, but given that Limited is at the core of the circuit, I think it is safe to say that most people are motivated at least primarily (like 51%) by the (false) hope of getting onto the Tour. It is so extreme that lots of people I see at Limited events sell their rares and leave the rest of the cards at the tournament.  They don't even keep the cards.  How can those people, which make up the vast majority of non Vintage, non casual players in New England, be motivated by desires other than Pro Tour money and glory?

[Dante]

As as aside, some response to Ferret's article about poker:

"It's easy to get relatively good at poker quickly" - it's easy to become a slightly better than break-even player, but beyond that, it takes a LOT of work and it will cost you to "learn", because playing $2/$4 is nowhere near the same game as a $10/$20 and up.

"Also, an internet player has won the World Series for the last two years" - true, Chris Moneymaker (2003 Champ) played exclusively online to win his seat, but this year's winner, Greg Raymer, has been playing live tournaments for YEARS.  He just so happened to win his seat in an online tournament, thus the media has dubbed him an "online player".

Also, most people don't pay for the main World series event, they win a seat (although the tournament they won the seat in usually requires $500-$1000 to enter or winning a seat in THAT satellite).  I think this year it was around 60% won a seat and 40% paid the $10,000, but I could be wrong

[Dr. Sylvan]

I think there's plenty of Limited players who play it because it's a challenging puzzle. I don't know what the overlap is with the people who don't even maintain a collection, but I can't imagine those people are a majority of the Organized Play base.

If you walked up to an average drafter at a card shop on saturday afternoon, he would not claim his primary motivation to be the idea that he expects to win a 150+ player tournament and then actually make money in some far off venue in competition with hundreds of very smart people. I don't even think that this is true for most PTQers. I have trouble believing any large group of players is that ridiculously deluded. Even if one guy qualfied for Amsterdam and attended, he was just as likely going to get high and hookered, not because he thought he had a high probability of winning. Most players probably like the idea of going to the PT that's being qualified for at a given PTQ, but they do not attend the event solely for that. If every PTQ was replaced with a GPT, and the number of GPs increased proportionally, I think most of the same crowd would be found at the GP-related events as the PT-related events.

[JACO]

It's also possible to see a certain "sexiness" to the Pro Tour, which makes it much more hype-compatible and attracts more attention to it.

The fact that you used the word "sexiness" even in quotes to describe an event including professional Magic players (like Darwin Kastle) is unbelievable.

Phil, have you ever actually attended a Pro Tour? Zvi Mowshowitz, Kai Budde, Eugene Harvey, Darwin Kastle, Carlos Romao, Andy Stokinger, Rob Dougherty, Mikey Pustilnik, and about 95% of the other Pro Tour players wouldn't even be considered remotely 'sexy' by a blind, deaf, and dumb homosexual man who hasn't taken it in the ass in 15 years. There are no hot women on the Pro Tour, so that pretty much eliminates the 'sexy' aspect of the game for about 97% of Magic players, as they'll have nothing to beat off to when they get back from their Friday Night Magic tournament after going 0-2 drop, and then hop on their high-speed wireless Internet connection to scan the coverage of the latest Grand Prix results and see a Top 8 consisting solely of unwashed heathen males, with the winner being none other than Osyp Lebedowicz. HOT FUCKING STUFF. The sexiest thing I've ever seen at a Pro Tour is when Bob Maher got a hug from his wife after winning some Pro Tour in Chicago in like 1997. She should have at least got on her knees right in the middle of the convention hall at that point. No wonder the Magic World Championships were broadcast at 4am on ESPN8.

That being said, I enjoyed your article.

[Dr. Sylvan]

While recent research has shown that life is not, in fact, all about the Benjamins, my comment about PT sexiness was, in fact, all about the Benjamins. :)

[Joel Rojo]

The sexiest thing I've ever seen at a Pro Tour is when Bob Maher got a hug from his wife after winning some Pro Tour in Chicago in like 1997.

What about the hat eating incident? I think that was kind of a turn on.