The PPT and Mike Sexton's Level Playing Field
By Amy Calistri

In his October 8, 2004 article in Card Player Magazine, World Poker Tour commentator, Mike Sexton, wrote that, "To continue the growth, prestige, and integrity of tournament poker, players need to be provided as level a playing field as possible." While Mike and I might nit-pick about the details, I couldn't agree with Mike's basic premise more. So color me surprised when the very same week, the World Poker Tour announced its Professional Poker Tour, a series of invitation-only sponsored tournaments. Hey, who took my playing field?

Mike defines a level playing field by saying, "Everyone who enters a tournament should have an equal opportunity to win." But if talent and skill are preeminent in Mike's view, shouldn't a level playing field also be represented by a system where everyone has equal access to play? That's kind of how they defined it in business school anyway. In fact, equal access to the playing field has been one of poker's strongest suits, in no small part contributing to its growth and to the great diversity of talented players we have today. While the World Poker Tour's role in poker's growth can't be minimized, hasn't the growth also been fueled, to a large extent, by the open tournament system?

Open Seating Models Work:

I'm a big fan of open seating. I guess that's why I also like to fly on Southwest Airlines.
There is no first class and there is no assigned seating. When you buy a ticket from Southwest Airlines, you theoretically have the same odds as the next guy to land an aisle seat near the front of the plane. You can improve your odds by getting to the airport early, cutting in the boarding line, or pretending to be infirmed for early boarding - but that is all up to you to figure out. And as I look around the plane on a Southwest flight, I am always struck by the diversity of passengers who did what it took to get their seat of choice. And it is interesting that Southwest, with its perk-less, non-elitist reputation, is one of the most profitable in its industry.

Open poker tournaments, like their airline counterpart, are not for the elite - they are for the prepared. You can't get a better seat by paying a larger buy-in or by virtue of "who" you are. And you can't reserve a seat at the final table. Like getting a good seat on the plane, getting a seat at the final table will require advanced preparation, the ability to exploit positional advantage, and the occasional deception. And when I look at the player field today, it is represented by every age group, gender, ethnicity and walk of life. Today's top name players were the Cinderellas of yesterday. Talent and an equal opportunity to play, not name recognition, was their path to the final table.

Open Tournaments Send a Message:

When Chris Moneymaker won the 2003 World Series of Poker Championship event, there was a new infusion of players drawn to the game, recognizing that if they had the talent, they could participate and potentially win. But this was not a new phenomenon. When a 24 year-old Phil Hellmuth won the 1989 WSOP, more young people were drawn to the game. When Barbara Enright made the 1995 final table of the WSOP, more women found the felt. And with every Phil Ivey and every Scotty Nguyen, there was a consistent message that was sent about poker: "We are an equal opportunity game. It doesn't matter who you are, just how you play. You are welcome." People got the message and they anted up.

While the $10,000 entry fee associated with many major tournaments does represent a barrier to entry, the satellite and super-satellite structures were designed to help mitigate that, allowing players to parlay a smaller buy-in event into a tournament seat. The prevalence of inexpensive online tournament qualifiers, fueled by Moneymaker's path to glory, made major tournament participation even more inexpensive and more "level."

Giving Back or Taking Away:

I am thrilled that sponsors are up-chucking the prize pool bucks for the Professional Poker Tour. The players have been footing the prize pool burden up until now and it's nice to see some money flow the other way. But sponsorship is always a double-edged sword. Sponsors want to get the most bang for their sponsorship buck. And in this case they believe the best way to do that is to have a tournament field that insures a final table of names and faces recognized by a viewing audience. But is this "golf-like" model consistent with the goals and image of poker? Are there other models that would be more appropriate?

Poker was unique from almost every sport in that the professional and the amateur walked into the arena together. People were drawn to poker because it was a venue where all got a fair chance to compete against the best in the game. As the Professional Tour develops, will people start to feel alienated from the game? Viewers and players identified with the occasional Cinderella that got a shot at the glass slipper. Will her absence from the ball disrupt the dream? Will amateur and second tier events start to lose the draw, erasing the growth currently being enjoyed by brick and mortar venues?

In the absence of a players association and a coordinated poker industry, who decides? Who decides what model is in the best interest of poker: the players, the casinos, online venues, tournament officials, television, sponsors, etc? Who decides who gets to play? It isn't any wonder that pros are flocking to agents and public relations firms in droves. If my livelihood was determined by whether I got an invitation or not, I'd hire the best in the business to lobby for my entry. And where does it end? Are seeded tournaments next? Will Phil Hellmuth get a bye to the final table while you and I have to play through?

Overstating My Case?

Am I overstating my case about the potential downside of the WPT's dalliance with invitational tournaments? Maybe. Kudos shouldn't be lost to the WPT for finally cajoling sponsorship money into the prize pool. It's a monumental step for the game, representing a historically significant player benefit. The amateur/professional divide claimed every other major sport, long ago. For many, a Professional Poker Tour was a clear and logical outgrowth of our game's newfound popularity and sponsorship appeal.

Many sports successfully employ a sponsorship/invitational model. The most successful of these have benefited from consistent qualification and invitational guidelines, developed in conjunction with a strong players association. In the absence of both a players association and an acknowledged hierarchy of qualifying events, the WPT has taken a constructive stab at selection criteria, soliciting guidance from an ad hoc Advisory Committee. Although both the selection process and the resulting player list had at least some evidence of bias and subjectivity, the list clearly reflects some of the best names in the game. And I have to believe the WPT is motivated to improve the process.

As it stands today, the Professional Poker Tour is only a few invitational tournaments, a virtual drop of water in the current sea of open tournaments. And if you invite 200 great poker players to a tournament, you're bound to see some great poker. And people will watch great poker.

But Still:

My only point is that the open system has been our unique legacy, the cornerstone of our "level playing field." It has been a successful growth engine for poker and has given us a well-earned "big tent" reputation. Before we barrel down a path that deviates from this model, I think we owe it to the game to carefully weigh the costs and the benefits. I think we owe it more dialogue.

I wish the World Poker Tour every success with its new venture and I look forward to their broadcasts. I wish the best of luck to all the players who get the opportunity to play. But still, I wish it were taking place on a less restrictive playing field...because in the end, I agree with Mike.

Oh and Mike, congratulations to you and Vince Van Patton for making the player list. (Sorry. I just couldn't resist)