There must be something in the water down in Australia. The two high roller events for the Aussie Millions – the 100,000k challenge (with re-buys) and the 250,000k (with re-buys) broke all previous field sizes this year, and by a huge margin.
The 100k challenge had 76 entries – up from 22 in 2013; and the 250k had 46 entries – up from 18 the previous year. First prize for the 250k came in at an extraordinary 4 million dollars.
Incredibly, Isaac Haxton spent 1.1 million on entries over both events, while Daniel Negreanu splashed out 1.25 million.
Predictably, this extravagance has led some to question whether these events are bad for the poker economy and for the image of poker.
This exchange on twitter between Daniel Negreanu, Dan Shak (a regular at high-roller events) and a third person sums up the common arguments against super-high-roller tournaments:
-
Madness down under #AussieMillions in for $500k again and another massive prize pool with rebuys coming in at $250k a pop!
-
@RealKidPoker @glaseone And you really think this is good for poker and the poker economy. Poker should be all about massive prize pools?
-
@daniel_shak it’s neither good or bad. If there is a market for a format and event type then people should be free to play as they wish.
-
@RealKidPoker @daniel_shak I agree with “free market” concept but isn’t there also validity in potential negative effects to poker economy?
-
@SammyTheDentist @daniel_shak if people want to play $1 mill turbos with endless rebuys, that is their choice and should be free to do it.
Daniel Negreanu @RealKidPoker 
Daniel Shak @daniel_shak 
SammyTheDentist @SammyTheDentist The most important point to make about ‘super-high-roller’ events is this: they’re a closed system. That is, you would be hard pressed to name a single player in one of these tournaments who would not turn around and put their winnings straight back into the poker economy.
Daniel Negreanu, for example, will go right on giving action in cash games and anteing up to play super-high-roller events. Tom Dwan, without doubt, will turn around and put whatever he wins in these tournaments back into high-stakes poker games in Macau. Win or lose, high-roller regulars like Tobias Reinkemeier will simply move on to the next big game.
The multimillionaire Chinese amateurs who are regular faces at these events in Australia – Richard Yong, for example – are there for the action, not the money. They can take the hit without much pain if they lose, and if they win the money will simply return to high-limit tables back in Macau (again, on a table Tom Dwan is very likely sitting at).
You could make the argument that Phil Ivey might go blow some of his winnings at the Baccarat table (and that is an entirely reasonable argument to make), but does anyone think Ivey will stop generating action at the poker table?
Phil Ivey is a special case – a gift from the poker gods to us mere mortals, whose very existence generates interest and money in the game of poker.
It’s true that some players could blow their entire roll at these tables. But even if Isaac Haxton, for example, did go broke playing these, does anyone seriously suggest he’s not going to find backers lining up to put him in tournaments and cash games?
The problem here isn’t high buy-in tournaments. The problem is that the concept of the ‘poker economy’ is one of the most widely misunderstood in the game.
The poker economy is a nebulous thing – it’s not simply the arithmetic of the buy-ins for high-roller tournaments. Indeed, this is the least relevant factor.
What’s for more important is the reputation of the game, it’s the high profile players being willing to act as ambassadors, it’s the legislation regulating live and online poker, it’s well-rolled professionals willing to give action and filthy rich amateurs being given the opportunity to play in a friendly, welcoming environment.
Black Friday was diabolical for the poker economy, the Full Tilt scandal incredibly damaging, and the ethics of Howard Lederer just plain bad. Collectively these three things cost the poker economy hundreds of millions of dollars. High-roller events in Australia are not even a blip on that radar.
On balance, you could even argue that these events are good for the game. The interest generated in the 250k buy-in has been extraordinary. Poker journalist Kevin Mathers – who is covering the Aussie Millions – was so hounded over twitter about live-streaming for the event that he changed his twitter handle to ‘No Live Steaming’.
The 250k is interesting because it lends itself to one of the tastiest clichés of poker – hardened professional facing off against wealthy amateurs for mind-boggling amounts of money. Importantly, it’s the sort of game that has appeal beyond that of the poker geek. The general public eat these stories up.
In addition, the logical consequence of absurdly expensive buy-ins is the guarantee of a final table filled with famous, popular professionals. The final table of the 250k included no less than Phil Ivey, Daniel Negreanu, Tom Dwan, Erik Seidel, Isaac Haxton and Mike ‘Timex’ McDonald.
That sort of line-up makes for good television. That is good for poker.
Sure, the spotlight on these events should not detract from that other tasty poker cliché – that of the Average Joe take a shot and winning it all. But there’s no chance of that. The Chris Moneymaker storyline will always be the most popular, and even big events like this won’t be able to overshadow it.
The likes of Dan Shak should not be worried: he’ll have a shot at some of the prize money when the winner of this tournament turns up in the next high-roller event, or at the next high-limit cash game in Melbourne, Macau, or Vegas.
As for the image of poker – well, tournaments like this only add to the mystique in the eye of the public.
Bring it on.